Call for POSH Act Expansion to Include Women in Politics

Why in the News?

1. The Supreme Court has allowed a petitioner to withdraw a plea challenging the exclusion of women political workers from the ambit of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the POSH Act.
2. The plea questioned the legal gap that leaves women political workers without statutory protection against sexual harassment, particularly during election campaigns and party-related work.

Key Highlights

1. Petition and Withdrawal
   1. The petitioner moved the Supreme Court arguing that women in politics deserve legal safeguards similar to those in other professions.
   2. The Supreme Court, led by CJI, allowed her to withdraw the plea and pursue other appropriate remedies.
2. Exclusion from the POSH Act
   1. The petition highlighted that the current definitions of “workplace” and “employer” under the 2013 Act do not include political parties or their working environment.
   2. As a result, women political workers, especially those at grassroots levels, remain unprotected under this law.
3. Demand for Legislative Interpretation
   1. Senior advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the Act’s definitions need broadening to include the political spectrum.
   2. The plea sought a court declaration stating that political parties are obligated to implement POSH mechanisms.
4. Lack of Remedy for Political Workers
   1. The absence of inclusion denies affected women access to Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) or grievance redressal mechanisms.
   2. The petition noted the vulnerability of women during political activities, such as election campaigns, which are often informal and lack oversight.
5. Progressive Intent vs Practical Gaps
   1. While the POSH Act was designed to protect women across sectors, its narrow institutional definitions hinder coverage for large sections of women, especially in unregulated or informal settings like political activism.

How was the PoSH Act Formed?

1. Bhanwari Devi incident: In 1992 a social worker with the Women’s Development Project of the Rajasthan government was gang-raped after she tried to prevent the marriage of a one-year-old girl.
2. SC 1997 guidelines/Vishakha Guidelines: While hearing pleas filed against the crime, the SC noted the absence of any law that guarantee against “sexual harassment at workplaces”.
   The apex court laid down a set of guidelines to fill the statutory vacuum till a law could be enacted.
3. The PoSH Bill: It was introduced by the Women and Child Development Ministry in 2007. It went through several amendments and came into force in December, 2013, after being enacted by the Parliament.

Key Provisions of the POSH Act:

1. Defines sexual harassment: To include unwelcome acts such as physical, verbal/non-verbal conduct – a demand or request for sexual favours, making sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, etc.
2. Lists down five circumstances that would constitute sexual harassment:
   1. Implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in employment
   2. Implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in employment
   3. Implied or explicit threat about present or future employment status
   4. Interference with work or creating an intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment.
   5. Humiliating treatment is likely to affect health or safety.
3. Defines an employee (not just in accordance with the company law): All women employees, whether employed regularly, temporarily, contractually, on an ad hoc or daily wage basis, as apprentices or interns, can seek redressal to sexual harassment in the workplace.
4. Expands the definition of ‘workplace’: Beyond traditional offices to include all kinds of organisations across sectors, even non-traditional workplaces (for example, telecommuting) and places visited by employees for work.

Implications

1. Gap in Legal Protection
   1. The exclusion leaves thousands of women political workers without any statutory remedy for sexual harassment.
   2. Undermines the universal applicability of gender justice provisions in public life.
2. Barriers to Women’s Political Participation
   1. Fear of exploitation or lack of redress mechanisms may discourage women from entering or continuing in politics.
   2. This can further skew gender representation in political decision-making.
3. Judicial and Legislative Role
   1. Highlights the limitations of judicial recourse when structural legislative amendments are required.
   2. Opens the door for future legislative intervention or possible PILs after broader consultations.
4. Need for Inclusive Definitions
   1. Reinforces the need to redefine “workplace” to include evolving forms of workspaces and engagements, especially in public service and activism.
   2. Could set a precedent for including gig workers, volunteers, and informal sector employees under protective legal frameworks.
5. Political Accountability and Institutional Ethics
   1. Political parties must face greater scrutiny in ensuring safe environments for their workers.
   2. The case spotlights the urgent need for internal codes of conduct and gender-sensitive party mechanisms.

Challenges and Way Forward

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s handling of the plea brings to the forefront a significant legal and social vacuum regarding the protection of women political workers from sexual harassment. While the POSH Act is a progressive piece of legislation, its limited scope fails to reflect the diverse and evolving nature of women’s work environments. Bridging this gap through legislative reform and institutional accountability is essential to uphold gender justice, ensure equal political participation, and promote a safer public sphere for women in Indian democracy.