Menu

POLITICS WITHOUT PROTECTION:  Why Supreme Court reject the plea for the application of PoSH in Political Parties?

Publications, Research paper

Why Supreme Court reject the plea for the application of PoSH in Political Parties?

ABSTRACT:

We often talk about a gender-neutral world, where everyone can participate freely without fear. Yet, when it comes to Politics, women are still vulnerable to various threats like that as sexual harassment. Despite the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act or PoSH Act (2013), which was passed by politicians/leaders in parliament to safeguard women against any kind of sexual harassment in workplaces, the women in politics are still not guaranteed such protection. The Supreme Court’s recent decision decided not to entertain the plea for inclusion of the political parties under the scope of PoSH Act, 2013, which leaves countless women in danger. If politics is to be truly representative, then it must also be safe.

This paper examines the legal reasoning behind this exclusion and its real-world consequences, showing how such a stance hinders women’s equal participation in politics. It calls for urgent reforms to ensure that political spaces are safe, inclusive, and truly representative of all voices, because without protecting women in politics, gender neutrality can’t be achieved. 

KEYWORDS:

Women in Politics, PoSH Act,2013, Workplace Safety, Sexual Harassment. 

INTRODUCTION:

“Politicians are expected to lead by example. If they continue to ignore gender equality, it sends the wrong message to society.”

– Sonal Mattoo (a lawyer and director of NGO Helping Hands)

The Political Parties are expected to make laws to govern the nation, yet they remain exempt from one of the most crucial legislation for the protection of women, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act or PoSH Act (2013). This contradiction is again highlighted in case of YOGAMAYA MG vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS where the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking to bring political parties under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 aims to protect women from sexual harassment at the workplace, for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Supreme Court, rejected the PIL seeking to extend PoSH to political parties stating that the matter lies within domain of Parliament in its recent decision. The petitioner sought that the definitions of “workplace” and “employer” under the PoSH Act be interpreted as such to make the Act applicable to political parties. The Petition argued that the Act’s expansive definitions of “employee” and “employer” include individuals working in political parties, whether or not they receive remuneration. Hence, the Political party workers should therefore be protected under the POSH framework. The Bench referred to a judgment of the Kerala High Court, which held that political parties are not bound by the POSH Act, a decision that has not been challenged. In the judgement of Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala & Ors., the Kerala High Court held that: 

“Political parties which are not having employer-employee relationship with its members, and which are not carrying on with any private venture, undertaking, enterprises, institution, establishment etc. in contemplation of a ‘workplace’ as defined under section 2(o)(ii) of Act, 2013, are not liable to make any Internal Complaints Committee.”

The Court emphasized that the petitioner must engage the ECI, the authority responsible for supervising political parties under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

While Supreme Court’s decision represents institutional boundaries; it leaves a serious concern for protection of women in political parties. In India, only 102 MP’s are females in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha which is quite alarming. To encourage women to participate more in politics; a safe workplace is a necessity.  But instead of fostering a better environment for women to participate more in politics, refusal to apply PoSH act to women create a more vulnerable place for women. 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

This research adopts a doctrinal and analytical approach to explore the legal status and implications of extending the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) to political parties in India. The primary focus is on the interpretation of statutory provisions, judicial pronouncements, and regulatory frameworks related to sexual harassment protections for women within political organisations.

Primary sources comprise key legal texts such as the PoSH Act, 2013; judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts, Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India & Ors. (2025), Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala (2022), and the Vishakha case (1997). These judgments provide insights into judicial reasoning concerning the scope of the Act, employer-employee relationships in political settings, and institutional accountability. Notifications and guidelines from government bodies, such as the Ministry of Finance’s directives on PoSH (2022) and the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs’ reports on women in Parliament, are also used. 

Secondary sources include academic articles, media reports, NGO publications, and expert commentaries that analyse the challenges women face in political environments. Articles such as “Lawyers, Activists Call for Extending POSH Act to Political Parties” (ThePrint, 2024), reports by UN Women (2014) and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (2016), and detailed analyses from platforms like POSH at Work and Moneycontrol provide contextual and comparative perspectives on gender-based violence in politics and the need for systemic reforms.

The research involves qualitative data collection through a comprehensive review of legal documents, judicial interpretations, media coverage, and policy reports. The comparative analysis extends to examining institutional responses, such as the role of the Election Commission of India and political parties’ internal complaint mechanisms. 

LITERATURE REVIEW:

Women especially in a male-dominated field like politics are always vulnerable. Historical incidents illustrate this vulnerability. On March 24, 1989; in Tamil Nadu’s Legislative assembly, opposition leader Jayalalithaa’s saree was pulled and DMK members laughed at her. This incident shows that women in politics have long faced not just political opposition but also the gender-biased discrimination and harassment. Many cases of such harassment goes unreported or if reported women are somehow blamed. 

  • Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan:

The problem of Workplace Harassment is a major concern, and an ensured safe workplace is itself a necessity for the promotion of gender equality and equal representation. After Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, The Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that appropiate work conditions must be provided, covering aspects like work, leisure, health, and hygiene. This aims to ensure a harassment-free environment for women at work, so no woman should fear unfair treatment due to her gender workplace. This case ultimately led to making of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, The Act defined sexual harassment and established the basis for legal protections. It expanded the definitions of “workplace” and “employee” to include informal and unorganized sectors. Nevertheless, political parties are still excluded, prompting questions about the Act’s universality and enforcement.

  • Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala:

In case of Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court, upheld that political parties are under no compulsion to establish an Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC”) as mandated under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship among their members. The main contention was that all organisations employing more than 10 employees were required, as under the POSH Act, to set up an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). Despite having legislation in place, the implementation has neither happened in letter nor in spirit in these organisations, and as such, the State Government must take action against them. It was further contended that the absence of an ICC or a grievance redressal mechanism was violative of Articles 14, 15, 10, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Sonal Mattoo, a lawyer and director of NGO Helping Hands, called for a change in perspective, encouraging political parties to focus on the spirit of the law rather than the technical definition. Sonal Mattoo said:

“The problem is they’re looking at the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law. If you look at the letter of the law, yes, you will struggle with who is the employer… but if you look at the spirit of the law, it’s very easy to implement as every political party has a disciplinary committee,”

  • Yogyamaya v. Union of India:

Similarly in Yogyamaya v. Union of India, the Supreme Court refused to hear the plea seeking to application of the PoSH Act to Political Parties. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran, initially stated that the matter fell within the domain of legislative policy and that the Court was not inclined to interfere. The procedural background of Yogyamaya v. Union of India is significant, as the petitioner had previously approached the Supreme Court in December 2024 with a similar plea. At that time, the petitioner’s counsel withdrew the writ petition, opting instead to pursue the matter with the Election Commission of India (ECI) and request a mechanism to ensure compliance with the PoSH Act by political parties. However, the present petition was filed following the ECI’s failure to respond to that request.

  • International Studies:

As per an UN Women study of 2013, there is prevalence of sexual favours and demands in political parties. As per Inter-Parliamentary Union (2016) study’s findings reveal troubling levels of prevalence – particularly for psychological violence, the most widely spread form, affecting 81.8 per cent of the respondents from all countries and regions. Among the kinds of psychological violence, 44.4 per cent of those surveyed said they had received threats of death, rape, beatings or abduction during their parliamentary term.

When women try to stand put against such activities of violence against women, they are usually told lines like it’s part of the system, it happens, it’s no big deal. However, such exploitation and harassment happening with any individual is wrong, and it is the responsibility of the government to provide a proper framework and authority to report such cases of violence and harassment.

METHOD:

The study is focused on understanding the applicability and limitations of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) within the context of political parties. 

The analysis involves an in-depth examination of relevant statutory provisions, particularly the definitions of “workplace” and “employer” under Section 2 of the PoSH Act. It also considers constitutional principles relating to equality, dignity, and access to justice (Articles 14, 15, and 21), as well as judicial interpretations in landmark cases such as Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala, and Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India & Ors.. Primary legal sources such as statutes, case law, and official government reports are supplemented by secondary sources, including academic commentaries, policy papers, and journalistic analyses from The Print, Hindustan Times, Veredictum, POSH at Work, and others.

This paper also evaluates the implications of excluding political parties from the ambit of the PoSH Act. This includes reviewing national and international reports (such as those by UN Women and the Inter-Parliamentary Union), and documented cases of harassment within political spheres. 

SUGGESTIONS:

“The people who have the solutions to the world’s most

 difficult problems are the people who live it every day”.

Excluding the Political Parties from the scope of the PoSH act creates a dangerous environment where harassment can occur in one of the most powerful institutions of democracy. To ensure that political parties are safe place for women, several steps can be taken:

  • Inclusion of Political Parties under PoSH Act, 2013: 

The Parliament should immediately take action to include the Political Parties under the scope of ‘workplace’ under Section 2(o) of PoSH Act. The Political Parties should be included as workplace under act and the definitions of “employee” and “employer” should encompass individuals working in political parties, whether or not they receive remuneration

  • Establishment of Internal Complaints Committees (ICC’s) by Political Parties:

Most political parties lack formal grievance redressal systems.  Existing disciplinary committees are not mandated to include external members or meet impartiality standards prescribed under the POSH Act. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the All India Professional Congress (AIPC), a wing of the Indian National Congress (INC), are the only exceptions.  According to the CPI(M)’s website, an Internal Committee (IC) was constituted shortly after the gazette notification of the POSH Act in 2013, and the party reconstitutes it every three years. All the Political Parties must work and constitute a ICC in order to establish a mechanism for women to take their grievances to and also to encourage more women participation. 

  • Role of Election Commission: 

The Court observed that ECI, being responsible for the registration and regulation of political parties, is the natural forum for such grievances. The ECI, though not empowered to enforce the PoSH Act, can still make it mandatory for Political Parties to establish an internal mechanism for addressing sexual harassment under Section 29A of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951.

  • Women Leaders in Parliament: 

The women leaders in parliament should initiate a bill to include the political parties under the definition of ‘workplace’ under Section 2(o) of PoSH Act,2013. This initiative will not just be a procedural move, but will be a powerful opportunity for women in politics to work for themselves and for the upcoming generations.

  • Support from Society and Media: 

The public pressure and Media always play a crucial role in reforms. The NGO’s, Think Tank, Research Institutes should continue and work on highlighting such issue, so that it can gain the importance and which can ultimately lead to reforms. 

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court’s decision, though because of institutional boundaries; misses the important task of changing what women in politics faced for long times. Political parties may lack the formal employment contract but hierarchical positions and workplace interactions exists. The major barriers to PoSH implementation according to High court of Kerala is absence of Employer-Employee relationship and lack of adherence to traditional definitions of Employer and Workplace. 

The Indian Government should work on making the political environment of India; more safe and inclusive for women and should initiate a bill soon to include Political parties in ambit of workplace under section 2(o) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013; so that women can be ensured of their safety and have a proper framework for their protection. Additionally, political parties can take the proactive step of including provision for sexual harassment prevention in their party’s Constitution and Rules. Such an action will reflect their true commitment to women’s safety more than the speeches spoken-and-forgotten in their rallies. The Parliament, the Election Commission, Political Parties and public should all work together for this issue, because if politics continue without giving protection to women which ensures them a safe work environment, the women participation in politics will remain a privilege.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cases

  • Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 (India).
  • Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 39052 of 2025 (India Sup. Ct. Aug. 1, 2025).
  • Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala, W.P.(C) Nos. 33994, 34273 & 36059 of 2018 (Kerala High Ct. Mar. 17, 2022).

Statutes & Government Documents

Articles, Reports & Online Sources

Harleen kaur Paul 

University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh.