| SC notices Centre, BCI on plea to implement POSH Act for women lawyers | | | Early Times Report
New Delhi, Aug 29: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine a plea for the implementation of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) (POSH) Act, 2013 for women lawyers enrolled with State Bar Councils or Bar Association.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan issued notice to the Centre and the Bar Council of India.
During the hearing, the bench asked how could a petition under Article 32 (right to move court for protection of fundamental rights) of the Constitution be filed against a high court judgment.
On July 7, the Bombay High Court held POSH law applied only in an employer-employee relationship, therefore, women lawyers did not fall in its ambit.
The petitioner’s counsel subsequently agreed to delete the prayer for the setting aside of the high court order.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by advocate and author Seema Joshi which has sought directions to implement and apply the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) to women advocates enrolled with State Bar Councils/Bar Associations.
The plea, filed through advocates Ritika Vohra and Naman Joshi, also sought directions to constitute/continue internal committees under the POSH Act to hear complaints of women advocates.
The petition said in the absence of a clear precedent on this issue of applicability of the POSH Act to state bar councils or bar associations, women lawyers in India were at risk of an uneven protection across states, which is against the mandate of the statute.
“The Preamble to the POSH Act itself states that sexual harassment violates a woman’s fundamental rights to equality under Articles 14 and 15, life and dignity under Article 21, and freedom to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g), which includes the right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment.” The plea added, “The very object and design of the statute is to give effect to these rights, and any interpretation that excludes women advocates from its protection is contrary to the constitutional purpose that the Act seeks to fulfil. |
|
