Lawyers Without a Safety Net: The PoSH Act's Blind Spot

A lawyer fights every day to defend the fundamental rights of others — but who protects their own rights in the workplace? The Constitution enshrines the ideals of equality, safety, non-discrimination, and the right to live with dignity for every individual. To uphold these values, the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (PoSH) Act, 2013, was enacted, following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.

In a gentle twist of irony, the PoSH Act and Rules came into being only in 2013 — after the judgment in Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. — despite the Vishaka guidelines having been in place since 1997. Although the Act was intended for the protection of women in the workplace, the definition of "workplace" under the Act is framed so narrowly that it largely covers only the employer-employee relationship.

As observed by the Delhi High Court in Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India, "the aim and objective of formulating the Vishaka guidelines was obvious — to ensure that sexual harassment of working women is prevented and any person guilty of such an act is dealt with sternly." Women advocates form part of the working population and should be covered under the PoSH Act. The definition of the workplace must evolve to protect them — women who are equally vulnerable to sexual harassment in the professional environment they inhabit daily.

Despite the provisions of the Advocates Act, women advocates remain unprotected. For this same reason, Seema Joshi has filed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking the inclusion of women advocates within the PoSH framework, challenging the order of the Bombay High Court.

The Case for Inclusion of Women Advocates in PoSH#

Excluding women advocates from the PoSH Act not only violates their constitutional rights but also carries broader social consequences. It transmits a discouraging message in a country where the proportion of working women is already low. As stated in the preamble of the PoSH Act itself, "sexual harassment leads to the violation of the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and her right to life with dignity under Article 21, and the right to carry on any profession, trade or business, which includes a right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment." By excluding women advocates from its ambit, the legislation fails to protect the very rights for which it was created.

While formulating the Vishaka guidelines, the Supreme Court placed reliance on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979, which India has both signed and ratified. The guidelines were intended to protect women in the workplace, whether in the public or private sector. Yet even fifteen years after those guidelines were issued, they were not effectively implemented across many sectors. The judgment in Medha Kotwal Lele directed that the Vishaka guidelines be extended to the Bar Council of India and other government authorities — and the Bar Council of India did not implement them even thereafter.

The incidents of sexual harassment of women advocates in India only underscore the urgency of their inclusion. As reported by the Hindustan Times, a district judge was suspended and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against another, following allegations that they pressured a woman advocate to withdraw her rape complaint — incidents that should shake the conscience of the legal community.

One such episode took place on 19 April 2019, when a former court officer alleged that she had been sexually harassed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi — accusing him not only of unwanted physical contact but also of the victimisation suffered by her and her family thereafter. The matter was dealt with by an in-house committee, in the highly controversial circumstance where the Chief Justice himself sat on the special bench that denied the allegations.

This case highlighted a larger issue of institutional bias in handling complaints of sexual harassment within the legal system itself. If the highest court of the country — the institution supposed to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen — is unable to protect the rights of its own women staff, then the plight of women advocates and others in the legal profession is rendered all the more precarious. The PoSH Act is, in this sense, paradoxical: its preamble promises protection of women in the workplace from sexual harassment, while its narrow framing excludes women advocates from that very protection.

When Courts Exclude Their Own#

The paradox of the PoSH Act is most evident in the Bombay High Court's 2025 ruling in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v. Bar Council of India and Ors., where the petitioner filed a PIL seeking the inclusion of women advocates under the Act. The petition cited the Vishaka guidelines and Medha Kotwal Lele in support.

However, the High Court held that the Act requires an employer-employee relationship, which does not exist between the Bar Council of India and advocates. It held that neither the Bar Council of India nor the Bar Council of Goa and Maharashtra could be considered employers of advocates, and that the grievances of advocates could instead be addressed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.

This reasoning highlights a glaring blind spot in the PoSH framework — relegating women advocates to a grievance mechanism that was never designed to address sexual harassment.

Challenging this ruling, Seema Joshi filed a PIL in the Supreme Court, contending that the Medha Kotwal Lele judgment leaves no basis for excluding women advocates from the Act's protection. The petitioner argued that the Bar Council, as a statutory body under the Advocates Act, 1961, and bar associations functioning within court premises and supported by state infrastructure, do fall within the definition of "workplace" under the PoSH Act.

Awaiting Judicial Clarity#

The notice issued in Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India will carry consequences beyond the immediate parties. A ruling in favour of inclusion would affirm that every woman, regardless of her professional space, is entitled to safety under the PoSH Act. It would not merely be a procedural step — it would carry the deeper assurance that the dignity and safety of women advocates are recognised and protected by the very institutions they serve.

The issue extends beyond women advocates. If the ambit of the PoSH Act remains confined to the employer-employee relationship, a large section of working women — those in independent, professional, or semi-formal arrangements — will continue to remain outside its protection. In a country where the proportion of working women is already low, this exclusion will only deepen the structural barriers that discourage women from entering and remaining in the workforce.

The question is also one of institutional credibility. If women are not protected in statutory bodies — despite the ruling in Medha Kotwal Lele — and if the spaces meant to safeguard fundamental rights cannot guarantee safety to those within them, the message sent to women in every other sector is one of institutional indifference. The internal committees under the Advocates Act exist, but their composition raises legitimate concerns about internal bias, constituted as they are by the very bodies whose members stand accused.

Expanding the ambit of the PoSH Act would not only close this blind spot — it would uphold the constitutional ideals of equality, dignity, the right to life, and non-discrimination that the Act itself was built to protect.