The Supreme Court declined to entertain a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the Kerala High Court’s judgment that political parties are not required to constitute Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and A.S. Chandurkar verbally observed that individuals joining political parties are not in an employment relationship, thus falling outside the Act’s ambit. The court dismissed the SLP filed by Advocate Yogamaya M.G., emphasizing that political parties do not qualify as “workplaces” under the POSH Act, as there is no employer-employee dynamic among members.
Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, representing the petitioner, argued that the Kerala High Court overlooked the broad definition of “aggrieved woman” under Section 2(a)(i) of the POSH Act, which encompasses “a woman, of any age, whether employed or not, who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment by the respondent” in relation to a workplace. Gupta contended that the Act does not mandate formal employment for a woman to file a complaint, stressing that political parties operate as organized setups with hierarchical structures akin to workplaces. She urged the court to interpret Sections 2(e) (workplace), 2(g) (employer), and Section 4 (constitution of ICC) expansively to include political parties, ensuring protection for women political workers.
However, Chief Justice Gavai interjected, questioning, “How do you put the political parties in a workplace?” and pointing out that political parties do not employ members or provide remuneration, stating, “When a person enters a political party, it’s not a job; there is no payment.” The bench appeared disinclined to delve deeper, viewing the matter as one of policy rather than judicial interpretation, and dismissed the SLP, upholding the Kerala High Court’s 2022 ruling.
The Kerala High Court’s division bench, led by then-Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, in a 2022 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy (CCRRA), analyzed the POSH Act’s provisions and concluded that political parties are not obligated to form ICCs. The court reasoned that the Act applies to workplaces with an employer-employee relationship, as defined under Section 2(g), and political parties—associations of individuals with a common purpose—do not fit this criterion. Section 4(1) mandates every employer to constitute an ICC by written order, with provisos for multi-location workplaces, but the High Court held that clauses like 2(g)(i) (covering government or local authority entities) do not apply to political parties, which are neither governmental nor local bodies.
In the same judgment, the Kerala High Court directed film production houses to constitute ICCs, recognizing each film unit as an “establishment” under the Act. The PIL had named major parties like the Indian National Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, and Communist Party of India (Marxist) as respondents. Earlier, Yogamaya had filed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking to bring political parties under the POSH Act, which was withdrawn with liberty to challenge the Kerala High Court judgment directly via SLP. The SLP, filed through Advocate-on-Record Sriram Parakkat (Diary No. 47381/2025), argued that excluding political parties undermines the Act’s beneficial object, leaving women workers vulnerable and violating their rights to equality and dignity.
This dismissal reinforces the Kerala High Court’s narrow interpretation, limiting the POSH Act’s application to traditional employment settings and highlighting the need for legislative intervention to extend protections to political spheres. The ruling aligns with prior observations that such extensions fall within policy domains, potentially prompting calls for amendments to safeguard women in non-traditional workplaces like political organizations.
Case Details: Yogamaya M.G. v. State of Kerala and Ors. | Diary No. 47381/2025
Lawcutor 