Supreme Court declines plea to bring political parties under POSH Act

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain a petition seeking to bring registered political parties within the scope of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The bench, led by Chief Justice Gavai, observed that extending the Act to political parties would “open a Pandora's box and become a tool for blackmail.”

The court dismissed the appeal against a 2022 Kerala High Court judgment which held that political parties are not legally bound to establish internal complaints committees (ICCs) under the POSH Act, as there is no formal employee-employer relationship.

Petitioner highlights lack of redressal mechanisms

Senior advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for petitioner Yogamaya G, argued that although many women actively participate in political parties, only the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has established an ICC with external members. She noted that the absence of such mechanisms leaves women in political spaces without adequate redressal for sexual harassment.

The petitioner further submitted that major political parties such as the BJP and Congress have admitted to having inadequate ICC structures, while the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has not demonstrated transparency regarding its committee.

Court questions applicability to voluntary associations

The bench questioned the premise of treating political parties as workplaces under the POSH Act, asking, “How do you equate political parties as workplace? When a person joins a political party, it is not employment. It is not a job as they join political parties on their own volition and on non-remuneration basis. How can the law against sexual harassment at workplace include political parties?”

The petitioner had argued that since political parties are registered organisations that function within the framework of the Constitution—which guarantees dignity and safety for women—the POSH Act should be applied to them with equal rigour. However, the court did not accept this reasoning.

(With inputs from TOI)