Nowra (Australia): On 15 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India refused to intervene in a petition challenging a 2022 Kerala High Court judgment that said India’s workplace sexual-harassment law did not apply to political party offices.

Instead of correcting what many see as a judicial error, the Supreme Court’s stance deepens the challenge of addressing sexism in Indian politics.

The Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, or POSH, mandates internal committees (ICs) for complaints of workplace sexual harassment. The Kerala High Court declared that political parties need not establish ICs—holding there is no ‘employer-employee relationship’ between party and worker, and that party offices are not ‘workplaces’.

During the Supreme Court hearing, judges reportedly remarked that “entering a political party is not a job, there is no payment” and this could “open a Pandora’s box to blackmail”.

This article argues the High Court’s definition of ‘workplace’ is too limited and fails to recognise the real structural inequalities facing women inside political party offices. When the Supreme Court refused to intervene, it compounded the error and shut down a vital discussion on sexual harassment in politics.

Arguments put forth by both courts also fail to acknowledge that political representation of women in India remains among the lowest globally—15% in Parliament about 9% in many state assemblies. The lack of protection is unlikely to improve this situation.

The Kerala Context

The case started with a 2018 public interest litigation by the Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy seeking ICs in various Kerala organisations, including media houses and political parties. The #MeToo movement exposed widespread sexual violence in the Malayalam film and political circles. 

The Hema Committee found rampant harassment and discrimination. Since many actors also have political careers, both industry and political parties became case respondents. This piece focuses on political parties. 

Key respondents were the Indian National Congress–Kerala, Bharatiya Janata Party, and Communist Party of India (Marxist)–Kerala. Other parties were added in a later petition to the Supreme Court.

Employer-Employee Relationship 

The High Court, and Supreme Court, focused on volunteers and said POSH does not apply—claiming lack of an employer-employee relationship. 

But not everyone at a party’s office is a volunteer. 

Parties employ researchers, interns, social media managers, ad teams, office caretakers, and more—some hired for tasks, not ideology. Section 2(f) defines ‘employee’ broadly, covering these roles, yet neither court mentioned this group.

A combined reading of ‘employee’, ‘employer’, ‘workplace’, and ‘aggrieved woman’ shows the Act does not require a conventional relationship or even payment.

‘Employee’ under POSH includes volunteers, trainees, and unpaid interns—regardless of pay, tenure, how they’re hired, or job title. The law’s intent is broad. ‘Employer’ is defined similarly. The ‘aggrieved woman’ definition under Section 2(a) extends protection to “any woman,” employed or not. Section 3(1) says “no woman shall be subjected to sexual harassment at any workplace”—without restriction.

Both sections use the words ‘any woman’ and ‘no woman’. This means the protection of the act is extended to all women, not only to women who are employed in a particular place. For example, if an unpaid woman intern visits a company office and faces harassment, she can complain to that company’s IC. Why aren’t women political workers covered? Neither court explains why section 3(1) and section 2(a) shouldn’t apply to them.

The Supreme Court in another related petition said it was a matter for legislators, but judicial interpretation could have sufficed for clarity (court remarks).

Are Political Parties Workplaces?

Another reason cited for denying the applicability of POSH to political parties is that they are not ‘workplaces’ under section 2(o)(ii) of the law.

Workplace “includes—private sector organisation, venture, enterprise … unit or service provider carrying on commercial, professional, vocational, educational, entertainmental, industrial, health or financial activities….” Since it says ‘includes’, not ‘means’, courts can expand the list.

Political parties are registered under the Representation of Peoples Act 1951, with defined structures and hierarchies. (Advocate’s argument). The history of the Act (see here) shows its purpose is countering workplace power imbalances. Why exempt parties, whose offices and hierarchies also entrench gender bias? Recent news shows many instances (here, here, here, here and here).

Distinguishing politics as ‘service,’ not ‘job,’ may fit ideals about public good, but shouldn’t deny workplace rights. In Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan, which led to current law, women in party jobs were not excluded. Such an exclusion of political party works amounts to violation of anti-discrimination guarantee of the constitution, 

Women in politics deserve equal workplace protection: their representation, as I said, is already low. India ranks 149 globally in terms of women's representation in national parliaments, with countries like South Africa (46%) and the UK (35%) having significantly higher percentages.

Parties worldwide have adopted harassment redressal frameworks (here and here). India should do the same.

The Misuse Argument

Criminal law remedies exist, but legal processes can be slow and distressing. POSH offers interim workplace protections—leave, transfers, compensation—which criminal law does not.

Importantly, POSH mandates employer duties: safe workplaces, law awareness, staff training (Section 19). It requires annual reporting on implementation (Sections 21–25). Excluding parties silences the conversation and maintains the status quo.

The bench, while refusing the challenge, reportedly raised the spectre of blackmail. Courts often invoke “misuse” when it comes to laws protecting women, but rarely explain what they mean or back it with evidence. An unsuccessful complaint is not the same as a false one. Failure to prove does not equal a lie. Without data, “misuse” cannot be the starting point for debate, let alone a ground for dismissal.

Every law carries the possibility of misuse. Yet it is laws meant for disadvantaged groups that are repeatedly singled out. The POSH Act itself anticipates this: Section 14 already provides remedies against false or malicious complaints.

In December 2024, the Supreme Court set new guidelines for POSH implementation—including ICs and NALSA support. It's unclear why similar action is denied for political parties.

(Surbhi Karwa is currently pursuing PhD and holds a BCL (LLM) degree from the University of Oxford.)

Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.