The Women PoSH Law is Leaving Behind.

India’s Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) is powerful and broad legislation that continues to leave gaps. A July 2025 Bombay High Court ruling clarified that advocates are not covered by PoSH’s employer-based mechanism because bar councils aren’t their “employers.” Women lawyers must instead rely on remedies under the Advocates Act, 1961. [UNS Women Legal Association v. Bar Council of India, decided on 7-7-2025]

Similar cracks have now started to affect self-employed professionals and platform/gig workers. 

PoSH defines an “aggrieved woman” very broadly any woman of any age, whether employed or not, who alleges sexual harassment at a workplace. It also expands “workplace” to include traditional offices and non-traditional settings like dwelling places/homes (crucial for domestic work), transport, and more. [1]

This architecture was built on the Supreme Court's Vishakha framework and later reinforced by compliance directions (e.g., Aureliano Fernandes, 2023 [2] ;and some fresh 2025 compliance pushes[3]).

The current legislature involves key practices such as forming an Internal Committee (IC) in establishments with 10+ employees; Local Complaints Committee (LCC) or The District Local Committee at the district for smaller or unorganised workplaces. The legislature also mentions Domestic workers explicitly including them via the Act’s text (workplace includes a dwelling/house; aggrieved woman includes those employed in a dwelling). This dual structure was designed to ensure no woman is left without a forum.

In 2025 though, when there is a need to make the state more informed about this law, the courts seem to have taken a step backwards with a new judgement. 

In July 2025, the Bombay High Court held that advocates cannot invoke PoSH against bar councils because there’s no employer and employee relationship between them. The consequence of which allows the bar councils to not constitute Internal Committees for complaints against advocates. (ICs still exist for the councils’ own employees.) The court pointed women lawyers instead to Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (professional/other misconduct proceedings) as the primary statutory route. [4]

This means that the courtrooms, bar associations, and advocate chambers don’t neatly map onto PoSH’s “employer” model for advocates. Local Complaints Committee (LCCs) which typically substitute when there’s no IC in a setting with <10 employees/unorganised sector, also cannot neatly apply to advocates, due to the missing employer and employee link due to the Bombay HC’s reasoning.Women Advocates have no choice but to use the Advocates Act disciplinary machinery for harassment by advocates and they can only use PoSH where there is an employer and employee relationship (employee at a law firm, chamber, company legal team), and they can use criminal law where the conduct amounts to a cognisable offence.

Other professions that could fall into similar grey zones

1) Self-employed professionals (doctors with solo clinics, architects, consultants)

If one doesn't have an employer, PoSH’s IC route becomes non-existent. A woman doctor running her own small clinic, or an architect with an independent practice, may not have an “employer” to set up an IC. If the alleged harasser isn’t within a PoSH obligated “workplace,” the Act’s complaint machinery is hard to trigger. One must note that criminal law still applies and where a hospital/firm employs someone, PoSH does apply through that employer. This gap flows from PoSH’s employer-anchored enforcement model. They can approach the District Local Committee (LC), which exists precisely to hear cases from the self-employed and unorganised workers. 

2) Gig/platform workers (rideshare, delivery, on-demand services) [5]

Platform workers who are often labelled “partners,” not “employees,” have an uncertain coverage within PoSH. Emerging case laws from  Karnataka HC, Sept 30, 2024 did suggest that in some scenarios platforms may be treated like employers for PoSH purposes; this is evolving and fact-specific. The parallel social security laws for gig workers (also only  address welfare, and not PoSH redressal per se. Some platforms have voluntarily set up ICs. Where they haven’t, workers can file complaints with the District LC.

3) Armed forces

Commentary and litigation highlight that PoSH’s text and machinery haven’t been uniformly embedded in the armed forces, leading to calls from High Courts to establish IC-like mechanisms and robust sensitisation. Implementation is in flux and often handled through service regulations rather than pure PoSH procedure.[6]

PoSH was built on the idea that every workplace is a workplace. That’s why it bravely included domestic workers and dwelling places. But gaps remain:

• Advocates are excluded by judicial interpretation.

• Gig workers are trapped in employer/partner ambiguity.

• Self-employed professionals are covered, but many don’t know the District LC exists for them.

Laws are supposed to be safety nets, but a net with holes can’t stop the fall. The PoSH Act was a promise that no woman would have to choose between her dignity and her profession. And yet, the law’s machinery stops just short of this reality.

This gap is also an opportunity. The law has already shown courage by recognising domestic workers and dwellings under PoSH; it can do the same for advocates, gig workers, and others whose work falls outside conventional employer and employee walls. Until then, women in these professions continue to carry the silence of being unprotected and  that silence speaks louder than the law.

---

1 The PoSH Act, 2013 — definitions of aggrieved women and workplace (incl. dwellings). Department of Expenditure India Code 

2 Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (May 12, 2023): SC directions to strengthen PoSH compliance. Madhya Pradesh State Judicial Academy 

3 SC Compliance Push (Aug 2025): District-wise survey & enforcement emphasis. SCC Online  DLA Piper GENIE

4  Bombay High Court (July 2025): PoSH does not apply to advocates vis-à-vis bar councils; Advocates Act remedy applies. 1SCC Online

5  Gig/platform worker ambiguity & emerging views: Practitioner analyses and commentary. S.S. Rana & Co.    rainmaker.co.in   

6 Call for implementation in the Army:  Live Law    poshequili.com

---

Sources 

1. PoSH Act, 2013- Definition of aggrieved woman.

2. PoSH Act, 2013-  Definition of workplace (includes dwelling places and unorganised sectors).

3. Ministry of Women & Child Development, Govt. of India-  Role of Local Committees for <10 employees & unorganised/self-employed women.

4. Bombay High Court Judgment, July 2025-  Advocates not covered under PoSH vis-à-vis bar councils.

5. Advocates Act, 1961-  Section 35 on misconduct.

6. Karnataka High Court (Sept 2024) + commentary on gig worker coverage under PoSH.

7. High Court rulings & commentary on armed forces and PoSH compliance.