Published On: January 5th 2026
Authored By: Shibrah Aftab Khan
University of Kashmir
- Title: UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v. Bar Council of India & Ors.
- Court: Bombay High Court
- Bench: Division Bench (Alok Aradhe, C.J. and Sandeep Marne, J.)
- Date of Judgment: 07 July 2025
Introduction
The judgment in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v. Bar Council of India & Ors. constitutes a landmark ruling that critically addresses the applicability of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) to female advocates practicing independently in India. The Bombay High Court Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, delivered a judgment on 7 July 2025, holding that women advocates are not employees under the POSH Act and thus fall outside its protective ambit. Instead, allegations of sexual harassment involving advocates fall under the disciplinary jurisdiction of Bar Councils pursuant to the Advocates Act, 1961.
This case elucidates the complex interplay between workplace sexual harassment laws and professional regulatory frameworks governing advocates, while spotlighting legal protections for women in independent practice. The ruling has far-reaching implications for the legal profession’s approach to gender justice and workplace safety.
Background and Facts
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was instituted by the UNS Women Legal Association, a registered body advocating for women lawyers’ rights, seeking directions to the Bar Council of India and corresponding State Bar Councils and Bar Associations in Maharashtra to constitute permanent Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) as mandated by the POSH Act. The petitioners relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India¹ and the statutory requirement under the POSH Act to ensure a harassment-free workplace through effective redressal mechanisms.
The petition articulated that female advocates, facing harassment in the course of legal practice, deserve protection mirrored across all other workplaces and rectification mechanisms constituted under the POSH Act. The petitioners highlighted numerous instances where women lawyers faced harassment in court premises, chambers, and during professional interactions, yet lacked accessible remedies comparable to those available to women in traditional employment settings. They urged recognition of Bar Councils and Bar Associations as workplaces for advocates and requested directions mandating compliance with the Act.
The petition emphasized vulnerabilities of women advocates, particularly juniors facing power imbalances with senior advocates, judges, and clients. The petitioners argued that lacking structured redressal mechanisms deterred women’s participation in the legal profession.
The Respondent Bar Councils resisted, submitting that women advocates are independent professionals licensed under the Advocates Act, 1961, and not employees of the Bar Councils or Associations. They contended that advocates maintain professional autonomy, choose clients, set fees, and operate independently of supervisory control characterizing employment relationships. Consequently, the statutory employer-employee relationship, essential to the POSH Act’s application, does not subsist in this context.
Legal Issues Presented
The Court identified several pivotal legal questions that would determine the scope of protection available to women advocates:
- Does the term “employee” under the POSH Act encompass women advocates practicing independently?
- Can the Bar Council of India or State Bar Councils and Bar Associations be characterized as “employers” under the POSH Act vis-Ã -vis women advocates?
- Given these considerations, are women advocates entitled to POSH-protected mechanisms such as the constitution of ICCs by Bar Councils or Associations?
- Failing applicability of the POSH Act, what alternative statutory framework governs complaints of sexual harassment involving advocates?
- What interpretative bearing do seminal judicial precedents have on these questions?
- Whether the regulatory relationship between Bar Councils and advocates creates sufficient nexus to invoke workplace protection mechanisms?
These questions struck at the heart of evolving workplace definitions in modern professional practice and the extent to which traditional employment-based protections should extend to independent professionals.
The Statutory Framework
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
The POSH Act was legislated to give statutory effect to the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan², recognizing sexual harassment as a violation of women’s fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The objective is to provide a safe and dignified workplace by mandating prevention, prohibition, and redressal of sexual harassment with prescribed rights, duties, and grievance mechanisms.
The key elements include:
- Definition of “employee” (Section 2(f)) encompassing persons employed at workplace for remuneration, whether in cash or kind, including volunteers and apprentices
- Definition of “employer” (Section 2(g)) covering persons responsible for management, supervision, and control of workplace
- Requirement for every employer to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as per Section 4
- Obligation on workplaces to ensure a harassment-free, gender-sensitive environment and facilitate complaint redressal
- Comprehensive procedural safeguards for complaint handling, investigation, and remedial action
The Act’s scope extends to all workplaces across India, covering government, private organizations, educational institutions, and statutory bodies. However, its application hinges on the existence of an employment relationship, which became the crux of the present dispute.
The Advocates Act, 1961
The Advocates Act is the statutory instrument governing the legal profession in India, regulating enrollment, conduct, and discipline. Section 35 of the Act authorizes Bar Councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings against advocates for professional or other misconduct, including sexual harassment. The Act empowers Bar Councils to suspend or remove advocates from practice upon finding misconduct.
The Bar Councils function as regulatory authorities but do not engage in employment or control relationships with advocates, who typically practice independently under professional licenses. This distinction became crucial in determining the applicability of workplace harassment laws to the legal profession.
The disciplinary framework includes provisions for inquiry committees, fair hearings, and appeals, providing comprehensive mechanisms for addressing misconduct. However, critics argue this framework may lack the specialized gender-sensitive approach mandated by the POSH Act.
Judicial Precedents
Key precedents that informed the Court’s analysis included:
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan² established enforceable guidelines against workplace sexual harassment, emphasizing the state’s duty to provide safe working environments. The judgment recognized sexual harassment as a human rights violation and mandated institutional mechanisms for prevention and redressal.
Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India¹ directed comprehensive institutional mechanisms to ensure POSH Act compliance across varied workplaces, including professional bodies. The Supreme Court emphasized that all institutions must create harassment-free environments, though it did not specifically address the status of independent professionals.
Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra clarified workplace scope under the POSH Act, establishing that definitions extend beyond traditional office spaces to include all work-related activity locations.
These rulings emphasize institutional responsibility to prevent and redress sexual harassment but do not explicitly address independent professionals, creating the interpretative challenge this case addressed.
Court’s Reasoning and Findings
The Bombay High Court, analyzing the statutory language and legislative intent, underscored that the POSH Act’s requirement of an employer-employee relationship is paramount. The Court adopted a textualist approach, emphasizing that legislative intent must be discerned from statutory language rather than policy considerations.
The Court’s analysis focused on several key aspects:
Employment Relationship Analysis: Given that women advocates are self-employed professionals practicing under licenses granted by Bar Councils, there is no traditional employment nexus between advocates and Bar Councils or Associations. Advocates retain professional independence, control their practice, and are not subject to the supervisory control that characterizes employment relationships.
Regulatory vs. Employment Functions: The Court distinguished between the Bar Councils’ regulatory role in maintaining professional standards and the concept of employment. While Bar Councils exercise disciplinary authority over advocates, this regulatory function does not create an employer-employee relationship within the POSH Act’s contemplation.
Legislative Intent: The Court observed that Parliament deliberately structured the POSH Act around employment relationships, creating specific obligations for employers toward employees. Extending this framework to regulatory relationships would require legislative amendment rather than judicial interpretation.
Consequently, the Court held:
- Women advocates do not qualify as “employees” under the POSH Act
- Bar Councils and Bar Associations cannot be deemed “employers” vis-Ã -vis advocates within the Act’s meaning
- Bar Councils have no statutory obligation to constitute ICCs specifically for women advocates under the POSH Act
However, the Court recognized that women advocates retain remedies: Section 35 of the Advocates Act provides disciplinary procedures addressing sexual harassment as professional misconduct. The Court emphasized this mechanism, while different from the POSH Act framework, provides comprehensive disciplinary authority for harassment complaints.
Thus, the PIL was dismissed, though the Court acknowledged legitimate concerns raised by petitioners regarding women advocates’ protection.
Legal Analysis
Definition of Employer and Employee
The ruling reflects a narrow interpretation aligned with legislative text and prior Supreme Court pronouncements: the POSH Act is triggered by workplace dynamics grounded in an employment contract or relationship. This preserves legislative clarity but excludes professionals practicing independently. The Court’s approach prioritizes statutory construction over equitable considerations, maintaining legal certainty while potentially limiting protective scope.
Distinction Between Regulatory Authority and Employer
The judgment properly differentiates between the Bar Councils’ regulatory and disciplinary roles and the concept of employment, highlighting the absence of direct supervisory or contractual control typical of employer-employee bonds. This distinction preserves the independence of legal practice while acknowledging regulatory oversight, reaffirming established legal principles governing professional bodies.
Provision of Redressal Within Advocates Act Framework
The Court’s direction to utilize the Advocates Act disciplinary process centers on the comprehensive powers vested in Bar Councils to address professional misconduct and preserve legal ethics. This framework addresses harassment complaints without depending on POSH Act provisions, though it may lack the specialized gender-sensitive procedures mandated by the latter.
Socio-Legal Context and Critique
The ruling has generated substantial discourse surrounding the gendered vulnerabilities of women in independent legal practice, a domain traditionally resistant to fixed employment relations. While the Advocates Act procedure exists, practical barriers including lack of awareness, informal workplace interactions, and power asymmetries may hinder effective redressal.
Critics argue that the judgment creates a protection gap for women advocates, who face unique vulnerabilities in legal practice. The informal nature of many professional interactions, combined with hierarchical structures, may create environments where harassment occurs without adequate redressal mechanisms. The tension between maintaining professional independence and ensuring adequate protection reflects broader challenges in modern workplace regulation.
Legislative reform advocacy suggests amendments to either the POSH Act or the Advocates Act to address protection gaps for women in professions outside conventional workplace structures.
Impact and Significance
The judgment crystallizes important legal considerations:
The decision maintains clear boundaries between employment-based protections and professional regulatory frameworks. It highlights existing gaps in protection for women in independent professional practice and reinforces Bar Councils’ disciplinary jurisdiction as the operative mechanism to address sexual harassment within the profession.
The judgment serves as a call for legislative interventions to bridge protection gaps for women advocates and similar professionals. Parallel petitions to the Supreme Court seek to challenge this interpretation and advocate broader protective coverage, indicating ongoing legal evolution.
Conclusion
In UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v. Bar Council of India & Ors., the Bombay High Court held decisively that women advocates, as independent practitioners, lie outside the POSH Act’s legislative scheme premised on employment. The Advocates Act provisions constitute the proper regulatory avenue for addressing sexual harassment complaints involving advocates. This judgment elucidates the unresolved tensions in balancing statutory workplace protections with professional independence, highlighting an evolving legal landscape striving for comprehensive gender justice.
The decision, while legally sound in its statutory interpretation, underscores the need for comprehensive policy reform to ensure that all women professionals, regardless of their employment status, have access to effective protection against harassment. As the legal profession continues to evolve and more women enter practice, addressing these protection gaps becomes increasingly critical for ensuring gender equality and professional dignity in India’s legal system.
References
- UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) v Bar Council of India & Ors. Bombay High Court, Division Bench (Alok Aradhe CJ and Sandeep Marne J), Judgment dated 7 July 2025, SCC OnLine Bom 2647
- Medha Kotwal Lele v Union of India (2013) 5 SCC 150.
- Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241.
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
- Advocates Act 1961, s 35.
