The Supreme Court of India recently declined to hear a petition that aimed to extend the country’s workplace sexual harassment legislation to encompass political parties. This move comes amid growing calls for greater accountability within political structures. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vinod Chandran, determined that the issue was within legislative policy and outside the court’s purview. Following this, the petitioner chose to withdraw the writ petition while retaining the right to refile, indicating plans to contest a decision by the Kerala High Court with similar implications. (JURIST)
Significantly, this case originated in December 2024 when the petitioner first approached the Supreme Court seeking the same relief and subsequently appealed to the Election Commission of India (ECI) for a mechanism ensuring compliance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, commonly known as the POSH Act. Despite its inaction, the ECI was highlighted by the petitioner as a critical area needing intervention.
The relevance of enforcing the POSH Act within political parties lies in its aim to enhance women’s participation in Indian politics by removing barriers related to safety and harassment. A UN Women study notes that 58% of women involved in politics in India report harassment from within their political parties, underscoring the pressing need for accountability. However, efforts to impose such measures face resistance, as reflected by the court’s interpretation of legislative responsibility.
The Supreme Court’s decision, while citing its limited role concerning policy, may overlook the judicial roots of the POSH Act, which derive from a judicial mandate in the landmark Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan case. This decision had previously established guidelines to combat workplace harassment, relying heavily on international conventions like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which India ratified in 1993.
The reluctance towards implementing POSH within political parties can also be partly attributed to the political climate, where numerous sitting Members of Parliament face charges related to crimes against women, particularly within the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This political inertia underscores a broader structural reluctance to address gender-based issues within India’s political landscape.
The petitioner plans to continue their legal journey by challenging the Kerala High Court’s decision in the Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala case. This impending appeal could invite the Supreme Court to revisit the definitions of ’employer’ and ’employee’ under the POSH Act. A potential reinterpretation could address power imbalances and enforce protective obligations within political entities.
As the petitioner advances this cause, the coming months may reveal how the judiciary will balance issues of separation of powers, procedural considerations, and systemic misogyny within political circles. The judiciary’s decisions could set precedents for holding political parties accountable in the arena of sexual harassment prevention.