New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s ruling excluding political parties from the landmark Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, has evoked strong reactions from lawyers and politicians. Some see it as a “step backwards”, while others say it inspires confidence among women party workers.
The top court ruled last week that parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party, Indian National Congress and Bahujan Samaj Party will not fall under the ambit of the 2013 POSH Act, as they do not have an organisational structure, wages and a designated workplace.
A bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Atul S. Chandurkar, turned down the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by advocate Sriram Parakkat to bring political parties under the act, saying, “There is no reason to interfere. Dismissed.”
Advocate Parakkat, who filed the case on behalf of a woman advocate, expressed disappointment at the ruling on the landmark POSH Act, which provides measures for the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment complaints. “In my opinion, a blanket ban excluding all political parties from the ambit of the 2013 Act doesn’t help since every party must have at least 4-5 women, if not more,” Parakkat told ThePrint.
“It is really unfortunate. It is one of those things that the Supreme Court would later correct. Alternatively, somewhere down the line, Parliament may also pass an amendment to the laws,” Parakkat said, adding that the court dismissed his plea on apprehensions like allowing political parties to come under POSH Act’s ambit would open up a Pandora’s box.
One of the reasons given by the court was that political parties cannot be included under the POSH Act as they include workers who are not paid wages, Parakkat told ThePrint.
“However, the fact of the matter is that several parties, including the Communist Party of India (Marxist), do in fact give a stipend or wages of some sort to their workers,” he said.
The petitioner, Yogamaya M.G., herself a lawyer, told ThePrint that she was prompted to file the present plea after witnessing an alarming rise in rape cases across the country. “Against the backdrop of the Hema Committee report in Kerala, and the rising rape cases in India, I recognised the urgent need for a structured movement for women,” she said.
Guided by the belief that politics shapes every facet of life, she said, “Meaningful constitutional or systematic interventions can gradually transform society. Taking up this case was, therefore, not an end in itself but the beginning of a larger journey. With a firm foundation in place, I am committed to moving forward with renewed clarity, purpose and direction.”
Asked about the court’s dismissal of her PIL, Yogamaya said she plans to send representations to the Election Commission, National Commission for Women, and all women MPs, along with follow-ups. Underlining that POSH compliance is a “strong mechanism for women who are investing their time in society without payment,” she added that these women should also receive privileges like protection and respect, in return.
Lawyers and politicians that ThePrint spoke to also said the Supreme Court ruling left women without the protections guaranteed in other workplaces.
Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani said the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Yogamaya M.G. vs. State of Kerala—which excluded political parties from the POSH Act because they aren’t “workplaces” and their members aren’t “employees”—misses the spirit of the law, and fails to provide a sense of safety, security and dignity to the women employed, working as volunteers or involved in the functioning of all party offices.
“If the law’s very objective is to safeguard dignity, any exclusion of political parties not only undermines safety but also sends a damaging message about gender equality in public life,” Pavani told ThePrint. Adding, “I personally believe that extending POSH’s reach to political party offices is both legally sound and socially urgent. I strongly advocate for either judicial reinterpretation or legislative amendment, so that every working environment, including political spheres, reflects the commitment to protect women everywhere. Until then, India’s promise of gender justice remains incomplete.”
Senior advocate Radhika Suri, too, said the POSH Act should apply uniformly to all political parties. “Political parties should not be excluded at all because they are not above the law. Even if the argument is made that its application to political parties could be misused, that is not a fair argument,” Suri told ThePrint.
Former general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Prakash Karat, told ThePrint that the CPI(M) has “constituted internal committees at the central and state levels. This has been implemented for a decade”.
Karat said it was necessary to have a mechanism based on the POSH Act to give confidence to women members that their complaints will be heard. “This is irrespective of the judicial verdict that parties do not fall under the purview of the Act,” Karat said.
Saying that public representatives have a duty to lead by example, a Congress MLA from Karnataka, Darshan Dhruvanarayana, told ThePrint, “I respect the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court declining political parties from coming under the POSH Act.
“The apex court has noted that the political parties are voluntary associations, and not traditional workplaces, as people join them without remuneration, and don’t generally qualify under an employer-employee relationship.”
At the same time, the Indian National Congress (INC) leader added that he believed all political institutions, including parties, must ensure a safe and dignified environment for women who contribute to public life.
“While the court has clarified the current position of law, nothing prevents parties from voluntarily adopting robust internal mechanisms to prevent and address sexual harassment,” the Congress MLA said, while adding that the creation of such systems will pave the way for greater participation of women in politics and strengthen democracy.
Also Read: With no PoSH, is Advocates Act an adequate substitute for legal fraternity? What lawyers have to say
What is a ‘workplace’?
Under the POSH Act, a “workplace” includes any department, organisation, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch or unit established, owned, controlled or financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate government, local authority or corporation, among others.
It includes private sector organisations or private undertakings, institutions, trusts, enterprises, NGOs and service providers engaged in commercial, professional, vocational, educational, environmental, industrial and health services.
Essentially, a workplace under the 2013 Act ranges from a hospital or nursing home to a sports complex and even a private residence.
The act also includes workplaces in the “unorganised sector”, which includes enterprises owned by individuals, or even self-employed workers, with less than ten workers that produce or sell any goods or services of any kind.
Pavani described the Supreme Court decision as a “step backwards”, saying political parties would start thinking they are above the law, and a MeToo-like situation might also arise where victims are left without a safe recourse. “Normally, the POSH Act is applicable everywhere. In this case, however, a parallel was drawn that political parties are akin to a workplace, but the court rejected it,” she said.
Adding, “The decision, based on a narrow interpretation and concerns of opening a ‘Pandora’s box’ inadequately considers the reality that women participate in all spheres of civic life, including highly-structured political organisations which function much like workplaces.”
She said it was “disheartening” that women remained vulnerable to harassment and abuse wherever they are active, including political offices, campaign teams, and organising halls, where they deserve the same protections the POSH Act provides elsewhere.
“The scope of ‘workplace’ under POSH should be interpreted dynamically, covering environments where work-like duties and hierarchical relationships exist, and not be restricted to traditional employment,” Pavani added.
Pavani recalled the Supreme Court’s decision in landmark cases like Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan, which first laid down workplace guidelines for the preservation and enforcement of gender equality rights of working women.
She also cited the top court’s 2024 ruling in the Aureliano Fernandes case, where faculty members at Goa University faced sexual harassment complaints from female students. The university set up an internal complaints committee (ICC), which hastily conducted an inquiry and recommended terminating the teacher, prompting the Supreme Court to remark that private and public entities must strengthen their POSH compliance mechanisms.
The plea before the court
In the current case, the petitioner sought a declaration from the court that all political parties should be bound to follow the 2013 Act’s procedures for the protection of women in the workplace.
The plea also sought the setting up of grievance-redressal mechanisms against sexual harassment within political parties in line with the 1997 Vishaka ruling and the POSH Act for working women. Invoking the fundamental rights to equality, non-discrimination and life, the petitioners said that the POSH Act was enacted following the Supreme Court’s 1997 Vishaka judgment, delivered after the rape of a social worker in Rajasthan.
“Despite the Act’s progressive intent, women political workers, particularly at the grassroots, remain vulnerable to sexual exploitation during campaigns and party work, with no effective legal remedy under the existing legislative framework,” the plea said.
Highlighting the inconsistent presence of ICCs in political parties, the plea also noted that this leads to inadequate reporting and resolution of sexual harassment cases, and perpetuates a culture that “tolerates” sexual harassment.
The plea cited examples of political parties like the BJP and the CPI(M) to illustrate this inconsistency. The CPI(M) has set up ICCs with external members, while the BJP acknowledged that its ICC structures were inadequate, with complaints often managed by disciplinary committees or referred to state-level offices.
The plea sought to ensure that political parties comply with the POSH Act and provide a safe work environment for women, free from sexual harassment.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Bombay HC has left women advocates without PoSH shield. We must extend the Act to Bar Councils