Recently, UNS Women Advocates’ Association filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition in Bombay High Court seeking a direction to the Bar Council of India as well as Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa to consider formation of a permanent internal grievance committee of women advocates in all State Bar Council offices and all Bar Associations of Maharashtra in view of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2013). However, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v. Bar Council of India & Ors. (2025), has held that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (POSH Act), 2013, does not apply to women advocates as they do not have an employer-employee relationship with their Bar Councils under sections 2(f), 2(g), 4, and 6 of the POSH Act. The ruling was rooted in a textualist — or rather, restrictive — interpretation regarding the decade-old malaise plaguing the system: the lack of a forum for women advocates to raise their voices against  sexual  harassment. Since primordial times, women have faced societal inequalities at one juncture or another, and sexual harassment as an offence has a serious and insidious impact on the psychology of the victim.This judgment represents a farcical situation where those entrusted to defend the rights of the common masses are left without any forum to defend themselves.

The raison d’etre for rejecting the prayer of the Women Advocates’ Association — who sought inclusion within the ambit of the POSH Act — was anchored in a textualist interpretation of the locus classicus case Medha Kotwal (above) where the Supreme Court of India made explicit directions for state functionaries as well as for Bar Council of India, Medical Council of India, amongst others, to formulate sufficient mechanisms for the protection of women from sexual harassment.

Though it is undisputed that the POSH Act places an embargo on extending its protection to those outside an employer-employee relationship, Medha Kotwal categorically used the language that “the Bar Council of India shall ensure that all bar associations in the country and persons registered with the State Bar Councils follow the Vishaka guidelines.” [Para 44.4 and 44.5] Thus, without disturbing the separation of powers doctrine, a more harmonious recourse could have been to apply the Vishaka guidelines which categorically emphasised that the employer must ensure the safety of their employees whenever they faced sexual harassment until the necessary legislative amendment addressing the plight of women advocates was enacted.

A liberal and reformist view adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in both Medha Kotwal and Vishaka is also evident in both the judgments with the use of terms such as “responsible persons” rather than restricting itself to the definition of “employers” as is enumerated in the POSH Act, 2013. Therefore, this category could have been bestowed with the obligations at par with employers in order to address the tribulations of women advocates if the same was applied to Bar Associations and State Bar Councils across India. The need is more pressing when the Supreme Court in rulings such as B Shah v Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1978) and Hindustan Level Ltd v Ashok Vishnu Kate (1995) have laid down the mandate to interpret beneficent legislations with their purpose rather than strict textual interpretations.

Although the verdict of the Bombay High Court in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) does mention that Section35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 might ostensibly cover the plight of women facing sexual harassment within the corridors of justice, the historical social inequalities faced by women — coupled  with  their  explicit  protection under the constitutional prohibition of discrimination and allowance for special provisions (Article 15(3)) — call for a special legislative forum for the concerns of women advocates. The need becomes pressing, considering that it emanates from the premonition of women advocates that injustice might be caused to them by the very camaraderie which is meant to provide them with an encouraging professional ecosystem.