By Shaan Katari Libby
The Supreme Court heard a PIL on December 9, 2024, stating that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, also known as the POSH Act, should apply to political parties. The petitioner, advocate Yogamaya MG, was asked by Justices Surya Kant and Manmohan to approach the Election Commission of India (ECI) as they would be the competent authority “to prevail upon the recognised political parties for creation of an in-house mechanism to deal with complaints of sexual harassment.”
The websites of popular parties like the BJP, the Congress, DMK, AIADMK show no mention of POSH or sexual harassment at all. Currently, they appear to manage internal discipline through committees like ad hoc Disciplinary Action Committees as per the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These Committees are not bound to include women or external members as mandated by the POSH Act. The BJP Constitution broadly mentions actions “calculated to lower the prestige of the party” as breaches of discipline, while the Congress Constitution lists “offences involving moral turpitude” as grounds for disciplinary action.
In 1997, Bhanwari Devi was gang raped by four upper caste men. In the course of her job as a social worker, she had dared to stop these individuals from carrying out a child marriage. The police failed to protect her. An NGO in New Delhi took up her cause and the Vishakha judgment was handed down seeking to protect all women in their workplace(s) hereafter. The case law/precedent was followed until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, came about 16 years later.
The Act provides a clear definition of sexual harassment under Section 2(n), encompassing unwelcome acts or behaviour that are sexually coloured, creating a hostile or intimidating work environment. The Act applies under Section 2(o) to “all workplaces, including government, private, and non-governmental organizations, as well as any organization, institution, undertaking, or establishment”.
Statistics show there are 198 million people in India whose sole job is being party workers, and up to 20 percent of these are women. All these people are not being protected at present. The Supreme Court had some precedents to go on when it decided that the Election Commission should be approached to carry out the necessary changes.
In the case Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy vs State of Kerala & Ors (2022), the Kerala High Court (Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly) explored the applicability of the Act to political parties. The petitioner in that case raised concerns about the lack of mechanisms, the absence of established Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) and the vulnerability of women in political spaces. The Court looked at the broad definition of the workplace, whether parties are obligated to form ICCs, and the role of the state in enforcing this.
The finding was that political parties would not come under the term “appropriate Government” or “local body” so as to be able to persuade such organisations to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee. The sticking point was not whether the Act should apply, it was the practical aspect of who would be able to provide supervision and it was found not to be the state governments. The difference today is that the Supreme Court has tasked the ECI as the competent authority.
In 2023, prominent Indian wrestlers protested against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, a BJP MP and then-president of the Wrestling Federation of India. He was accused of sexually harassing female wrestlers, including inappropriate touching and demands for sexual favours in exchange for professional assistance. The protests led to widespread public outcry, and ultimately to his resignation. Singh, however, continues to serve as a Member of Parliament for the BJP, representing the Kaithal constituency in Haryana. He is also actively involved in the Bharatiya Kisan Union, an influential farmers’ organization.
In 2019, the then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was accused of sexual harassment by a former Supreme Court employee. The Court formed an Internal Committee but the complainant withdrew from the in-house inquiry. She cited various reasons, including: not being permitted her lawyer during proceedings, not being permitted video/audio recordings and not being informed about the Committee’s procedure.
In 2018, MJ Akbar, a former minister of state for external affairs, faced multiple allegations of sexual harassment during India’s #MeToo movement. Journalist Priya Ramani accused him of inappropriate behaviour and Akbar responded by filing a defamation suit against her. In 2021, a Delhi court dismissed Akbar’s defamation case, acknowledging that Ramani’s allegations were credible and made in the public interest. This was played out in a public court of law over three years rather than an internal inquiry and findings which tend to be both quicker and less stressful.
In the United Kingdom, political parties are on course to hand over the responsibility for examining allegations of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct by MPs to parliament’s independent investigator the Independent Complaints and Grievance System (ICGS), instead of letting political parties deal with them. The ICGS was set up in 2019 after Westminster was rocked by the #MeToo movement.
In the US, political parties are not explicitly subject to workplace harassment laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which governs workplaces. However, many parties have voluntarily adopted codes of conduct and internal mechanisms to handle complaints. Following the #MeToo movement, both the Democratic and Republican parties established clearer guidelines for reporting harassment and taking disciplinary action.
A 2016 Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) survey revealed that 82 percent of women legislators reported psychological violence, including sexist remarks and threats. In India, while women’s participation in politics has grown, systemic challenges persist, with women holding just 14 percent of the Lok Sabha seats and even fewer in state legislatures. Political parties appear to have to date relied on their non-traditional structure to avoid being considered an employer. This leaves approximately 20 million Indian women in politics without a clear route to complain/a protection mechanism.
As the central government is the writer/ creator of laws, it should follow that it be the role model for implementing said laws. We need to ensure that every company/every individual in this country sees its political and judicial representatives being held accountable for poor behaviour and transgressions. The notion of “one law for the people and one law for us” has to be done away with entirely.
Perhaps 2025 can be a turning point in Indian history, where we see our governments—state, central and local all adhering to the laws. Public examples of political party members being held accountable for sexual harassment will truly be leading by example. One hopes the Election Commission of India uses this opportunity to the fullest and with decisive action ensures all political parties are given a short deadline to implement the Act. The punishment for failure to implement would be that they lose their party status— just like a company has its registration cancelled for failure to implement.
—The writer is a barrister-at-law, Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, UK, and a leading advocate in Chennai. With research inputs from Shafiya Ali Hameed and E Sangeethavani