Reforming POSH: Workplace Safety for Women

Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea to include women political workers under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

• The apex court made the observations while hearing an appeal against a 2022 Kerala High Court ruling, which held that political parties were under no compulsion to establish Internal Complaints Committee (ICCs) in the absence of an employee-employer relationship.
• A senior advocate (appearing for petitioner), argued that although many women are actively involved in politics, only the CPI(M) has an internal complaints committee in place.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

• No Employer–Employee Relationship: The Court noted that political activity is voluntary and does not involve a structured employer–employee relationship.
  • Without clear definitions of “employer” or “employee” in political settings, applying POSH would be legally unworkable.
• Political Parties Not Workplaces: Political organizations, by their nature, are not traditional workplaces as defined under the Act.
  • The Court emphasized that the POSH Act was designed for formal employment spaces, not political associations or electoral activities.
• Risk of Misuse: The bench warned that including political parties might lead to misuse of the law, such as frivolous complaints, blackmail, or political vendetta, which could destabilize democratic processes.
  • Hence, it would “open a Pandora’s box,” making enforcement impractical.
• Role of Election Commission of India (ECI): The Court suggested that the Election Commission of India is the appropriate authority to address safeguards for women in political parties.
  • Petitioners were advised to approach the ECI for framing party-specific codes of conduct and grievance redressal mechanisms.
  • Extend with Institutional Role:
    • National Commission for Women (NCW): Can monitor and recommend political harassment reforms.
    • Political Funding & Recognition: Could be tied to gender-safety compliance.
    • Representation of People Act, 1951: May mandate grievance redressal cells in parties as a registration condition.
• Legislative Competence, Not Judicial Expansion: The Court underlined that Parliament must decide whether to expand the scope of POSH to cover political settings.
  • Judicial intervention cannot substitute for legislative policy-making in this domain.

About Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act)

• The Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is India’s first dedicated legislation against workplace sexual harassment.
• Definition of Sexual Harassment:
  • Meaning: Section 2(n) defines sexual harassment to include unwelcome physical contact, sexual advances, demands for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, and other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.
  • Circumstances: Section 3 identifies harassment when linked with promise of preferential treatment, threat of detrimental treatment, threat to employment status, interference with work or hostile environment, and humiliating treatment affecting health or safety.
• Objective: Ensure protection, gender equality, right to dignity, and a safe work environment for women.
• Origin:
• • Trigger Incident: In 1992, Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, was gang-raped for preventing a child marriage.
  • Supreme Court Action: In 1997, the Supreme Court issued Vishaka Guidelines due to absence of a law, making them binding in all workplaces.

• • Constitutional Basis: Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex, and Article 21 guarantees the right to life with dignity.
  • International Basis: India ratified Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1993, which obligated the state to prevent gender discrimination.Coverage:
  • Workplaces: The Act covers government, private, organised, unorganised, hospitals, sports venues, transport during work, and domestic work.
  • Employer Definition: The Act covers both traditional offices and gig or online platforms.
  • Applicability: The Act protects all women, irrespective of age or employment status.
• Institutional Mechanism:
  • Internal Complaints Committee (ICC): Every workplace with 10 or more employees must set up an Internal Complaints Committee with a Presiding Officer (senior woman employee), at least two employee members, one external NGO/expert member, and 50% women membership.
  • ICC Tenure and Inquiry: Members serve for 3 years, and inquiries must be completed within 90 days, while maintaining confidentiality.
  • Local Committee (LC): A District Officer must constitute a Local Committee in districts where workplaces have fewer than 10 employees or when the employer is the respondent.
    • The Local Committee is chaired by an eminent woman and includes representatives from government and NGOs.
• Complaint, Inquiry and Relief:
  • Filing Complaint: A written complaint must be filed within 3 months, extendable by another 3 months; assistance must be provided if the woman cannot write.
  • Conciliation: Settlement is allowed only at the request of the complainant, and monetary settlement is prohibited.
  • Interim Reliefs: Interim measures may include transfer, up to 3 months of leave, or equivalent arrangements.
  • Committee Report: The Internal Complaints Committee/Local Committee must submit its findings within 10 days of completing inquiry.
  • Employer Action: Employers must act on recommendations within 60 days.
• Employer’s Duties:
  • Safe Workplace: Employers must ensure a safe working environment.
  • Display of Information: Employers must display penalties for sexual harassment and ICC details.
  • Awareness Programs: Employers must conduct awareness workshops for employees and orientation programs for ICC members.
  • Support to ICC: Employers must ensure attendance of parties/witnesses and provide facilities for the committee’s work.
  • Legal Assistance: Employers must assist in filing criminal cases under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
  • Service Rules: Employers must treat sexual harassment as misconduct under service rules.
  • Annual Reporting: Employers must include details of cases in annual reports or inform the District Officer if no report is prepared.
• Penalties:
  • Non-Compliance: Failure to comply attracts a fine up to ₹50,000.
  • Repeat Offences: Repeat violations attract higher fines and may result in cancellation of licence or registration.
• Safeguards Against False Complaints:
• • Section 14: Provides for action against false or malicious complaints or false evidence, but only when malicious intent is proven.
  • Protection of Genuine Complainants: Inability to prove a complaint does not constitute malicious intent.

Exclusions and Practical Gaps in Sexual Harassment Protection

• Narrow Definition of Workplace: Excludes political parties, bar associations, NGOs, and freelance/gig platforms.
  • Example: The Bombay High Court (2025) in UNS Women Legal Association v. Bar Council of India rejected a plea to constitute ICs in Bar Councils, citing lack of employer–employee relation.
• Implementation Deficit: Even in covered workplaces (e.g., hospitals), safeguards often fail due to lack of awareness and accountability.
• Judicial Restraint vs. Constitutional Morality: Courts are limiting their role, leaving expansion of scope to legislative action.
  • Example: In Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court held that protection from sexual harassment is a fundamental right.
  • Counter-example: In 2025, the Supreme Court refused to expand POSH to political parties, showing judicial restraint and leaving reform to Parliament.
• Vulnerability of Women in Politics: Absence of statutory safeguards reduces participation and safety in public life.
  • Example: Multiple women politicians have publicly alleged harassment by party colleagues, but could not access POSH mechanisms since political parties are not legally considered workplaces.
    • Additionally, Women political workers face trolling, cyberstalking, doxxing, and online abuse on party-linked social media platforms. Need to link POSH law with the IT Act and Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act to address cyber harassment.
• Other Challenges:
  • Underreporting due to fear of stigma and career backlash.
  • Weak implementation in unorganised sector, small enterprises, and political parties.
  • Judicial restraint in expanding workplace definitions.
  • Lack of awareness of She-Box and IC mechanisms among women workers.

Global Practices on Women’s Safety in Politics

• United Kingdom: Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (2018) covers MPs, staffers, and political party workers in Westminster.
  • Provides confidential advice services and an independent investigator system.
• New Zealand: Parliamentary Conduct Policy (2019), a comprehensive policy addressing bullying and sexual harassment in politics.
  • Provides an independent commissioner and mandatory induction training for MPs.
• Sweden: Political parties have adopted internal gender equality charters and ombudspersons for harassment complaints.
  • A culture of self-regulation within parties supplements legal protections.
• Rwanda: Known for the highest proportion of women MPs globally (>60%).
  • Electoral laws and party rules include gender-sensitive grievance redressal mechanisms to encourage women’s safe participation.

Way Forward

• Expand Definition of Workplace: The POSH Act’s definition of “workplace” should be broadened to include political parties, bar associations, NGOs, and gig economy platforms, recognising them as quasi-professional spaces with structured hierarchies.
• International Alignment: India should ratify ILO Convention 190 on Violence and Harassment at Work and align domestic law with global standards, ensuring protection across both formal and informal spaces.
• Accountability & Enforcement: Strong systems of monitoring, reporting, and penalties must be established to address gaps in implementation, even in already-covered sectors like hospitals and universities.
• Judicial–Legislative Synergy: While courts should uphold constitutional values of equality and dignity, the legislature must act proactively to bridge statutory gaps and expand the protective scope of the POSH framework.

Conclusion

The POSH Act is a landmark legislation safeguarding women’s right to dignity at work. Yet, by excluding political parties and other quasi-professional spaces, it leaves a critical protection gap. For true gender justice and inclusivity, India must revisit the definition of workplace, ensuring that women in politics and public life are not left outside the ambit of legal safeguards.