Supreme Court Urges Centre and BCI to Draft Sexual Harassment Regulations for Women Lawyers

The Supreme Court of India on Friday took a significant step toward bridging a long-standing gap in workplace protections for women lawyers, urging the Union Government and the Bar Council of India (BCI) to jointly draft regulations specifically addressing sexual harassment complaints by women advocates practicing across the country’s courts and tribunals. A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) cannot be applied in a “straitjacket manner” to women in the legal profession, given the absence of a traditional employer-employee relationship between advocates and their seniors or clients. The court directed the parties to study the Supreme Court’s own 2013 regulations—the Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations—and replicate a similar framework for High Courts, district courts, taluka courts, tribunals, and other quasi-judicial authorities.

Background: The POSH Act Gap for Advocates

The petition, filed by advocate Seema Joshi, arose from a Bombay High Court ruling that held the POSH Act applies only to employees of Bar Councils and Bar Associations, not to women advocates themselves, because there is no employer-employee relationship. This decision effectively left women lawyers without a dedicated statutory mechanism to file sexual harassment complaints against peers, seniors, or others within the court environment. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India had directed Bar Councils and Bar Associations to create internal mechanisms, but those directives remained largely unimplemented. Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, appearing for Joshi, submitted that Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961—which deals with professional misconduct—cannot replace the comprehensive redressal framework contemplated under the POSH Act. The court agreed that a separate set of regulations is necessary.

Key Developments During the Hearing

During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna highlighted that the Supreme Court’s 2013 regulations have worked effectively within the precincts of the Apex Court and are specifically applicable to women advocates. She observed, “So, now, for the High Court, you can have this. Maybe you can replicate it. Instead of saying Supreme Court, you can say High Court. What about district court, Taluk court? They also should be directed.” The bench emphasized that the proposed regulations must define the “workplace” in a manner suited to the legal profession—something that cannot be copied verbatim from the POSH Act. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union, submitted that the Advocates Act is broad enough to address the issue, but Justice Nagarathna countered that the existing POSH mechanisms for court employees do not cover advocates, and that the lack of an employer-employee relationship between a senior and junior advocate necessitates a tailored solution.

The court directed the BCI to ascertain whether any state bar councils already have extant regulations dealing with sexual harassment complaints by women advocates. Advocate Radhika Gautam, appearing for the BCI, sought time to gather information from all state bar councils and committed to endeavor to bring about a common regulation applicable to aggrieved women in the legal profession. The bench listed the matter for further hearing on 25 November.

Legal Analysis: Crafting a Framework Beyond the POSH Act

The central legal challenge is that the POSH Act is predicated on an employer-employee relationship, which does not exist between a senior advocate and a junior, or between advocates and court staff. The Supreme Court’s 2013 regulations, however, operate within the Supreme Court premises and apply to all women—including advocates—without requiring an employment nexus. Justice Nagarathna noted that the proposed regulations must cover not only High Courts and district courts but also tribunals established under central and state laws, as well as quasi-judicial authorities. The court observed that the definition of “workplace” in the legal profession is fluid—extending from courtrooms to chambers, bar rooms, and even virtual interactions. The bench urged the parties to consider how the Supreme Court model could be replicated court-wise and implemented by all bar councils, thereby creating a uniform national standard.

Impact on the Legal Profession

If implemented, these regulations would provide a much-needed avenue for women advocates to seek redressal without being forced to rely on professional misconduct provisions or the limited scope of the POSH Act. The move would also align with the constitutional mandate of gender equality under Article 15 and the right to safe working conditions under Article 21. For the BCI and state bar councils, the task involves not only drafting regulations but also establishing internal complaint committees and sensitization mechanisms. The court’s direction to consult all stakeholders—including bar associations, women lawyers’ collectives, and the Union—ensures that the framework will be comprehensive and context-sensitive.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s intervention signals a progressive shift toward recognizing the unique vulnerabilities of women advocates and the need for a specialized redressal mechanism. By urging the Centre and BCI to borrow from its own successful 2013 regulations, the Apex Court has set a clear path forward. The next hearing on 25 November will likely reveal the progress of consultations and the contours of the proposed regulations. For the legal community, this development promises to fill a critical gap in workplace safety and gender justice, reinforcing that the right to a harassment-free environment extends to every woman practicing law.