SC Rejects Plea to Bring Political Parties Under POSH Act

Why the SC’s Rejection of POSH for Political Parties Fuels a Growing Accountability Gap

On September 16, 2025, the Supreme Court definitively declined to consider the inclusion of political parties under the ambit of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013. The rationale? Political parties, according to the Court, lack the conventional employer-employee framework necessary under the law. This follows a similar 2022 ruling by the Kerala High Court in Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v State of Kerala & Ors, where the decentralized functioning and informal structures of parties were used as a justification for non-compliance. Yet, this judicial stance does not address India’s most glaring gap: the complete absence of institutional safeguards for women in political organizations.

The numbers tell a sobering story. India has over 2,700 registered political parties—none of which are legally required to establish Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs). Contrast this with the corporate sector, where all offices with at least 10 employees face penalties of up to ₹50,000 for failing to comply with ICC mandates. In politics—a profession inherently linked to public trust—the absence of similar safeguards raises questions about gender equity in India’s most influential institutions.

The Fragility of the “Not a Workplace” Argument

The POSH Act explicitly defines a workplace to include public, private, formal, and informal spaces where women are employed. By its design, the Act is expansive, covering contractual workers, interns, and even freelancers. Yet, political parties remain outside its purview under the technicality of lacking an employer-employee relationship. In practice, this exclusion ignores two critical realities: first, that women in politics—whether candidates, volunteers, or staff—face unique vulnerabilities; and second, that harassment often manifests in informal settings, where power imbalances thrive unchecked.

Further, the current interpretation of “workplace” under Section 2(o) of the Act focuses narrowly on structured employment relationships, rather than the substantive nature of working environments. This legal rigidity fails to account for politically engaged women who, while unpaid or informally associated, remain integral to campaigns and party infrastructure. The irony here is glaring: women who risk their livelihoods and reputations in the public sphere are denied the protections guaranteed to their counterparts in corporate boardrooms and government offices.

The Case for Bringing Political Parties Under POSH

The constitutional mandate for equality underscores the argument. By excluding political parties from POSH's ambit, the judiciary inadvertently weakens fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, as affirmed by the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) judgment. That precedent recognized the prevention of sexual harassment as integral to the rights to life and dignity.

Moreover, the accountability gap is staggering. Political parties lack even voluntary grievance mechanisms, a stark contrast to sectors like media and entertainment, where industry associations have stepped in to create independent committees. Introducing POSH compliance at party headquarters would set a minimum threshold for addressing complaints, instilling confidence in women who otherwise face institutionalized indifference. Initiatives like annual reporting, mandated under POSH, could also bring much-needed transparency to parties, further legitimizing their commitment to inclusivity.

This legal protection could dramatically influence women’s political participation. As of 2024, women constituted only 15% of Lok Sabha MPs, despite global evidence that better workplace safety encourages higher female leadership. Without safeguards, harassment acts as a deterrent—forcing women to retreat from both entry-level roles and leadership positions in political life.

The Case Against: Practical Constraints and Unintended Consequences

Yet, the practical challenge of applying POSH to political parties cannot be overlooked. Unlike formal workplaces, political organizations operate through fluid hierarchies and decentralized decision-making. Volunteers, independent workers, and campaign teams often work without clear chains of command. ICCs, designed for formalized workplaces with distinct roles, struggle to adapt to this informality.

This governance complexity raises enforcement questions. How would a party with state units scattered across India ensure compliance? Would smaller parties, operating out of single offices with skeleton staff, realistically establish ICCs? The fear is that mandating POSH mechanisms across parties might lead to tokenistic committees or blatant non-compliance, diluting the Act’s effectiveness. The ₹50,000 penalty for violations—a sum hardly enforceable for unregistered entities or cash-heavy campaigns—renders implementation even more tenuous.

Additionally, the introduction of sexual harassment complaints into political disputes risks politicization of redressal processes. Accusations could become electoral weapons, undermining legitimate grievances while distorting public faith in anti-harassment mechanisms.

Lessons from South Africa

South Africa, facing similar debates about informal political environments, enacted the Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Harassment in 2022. The Code goes beyond formal workplaces, enabling sector-wide grievance panels for voluntary and decentralized entities, including political organizations. These independent boards were designed to be autonomous of employer structures, safeguarding the integrity of complaints.

The results have been encouraging. Reports from the South African Human Rights Commission indicate a modest but measurable improvement in women’s participation across provincial legislatures, with an increase of 8% female representation in three years. Crucially, sectoral boards insulated grievance mechanisms from internal organizational politics—a model worth examining in the Indian context.

Where India Stands

India’s rejection of the plea to extend POSH to political parties exposes a deeper reluctance to regulate informal power structures. While decentralization complicates enforcement, this challenge is not insurmountable. The creation of sector-specific grievance redressal boards, akin to South Africa’s model, could offer an adaptable solution, one that balances enforcement with party autonomy.

Yet the absence of even voluntary safeguards by political parties leaves a disconcerting vacuum. Token mentions in party manifestos about women’s rights do not substitute for the real institutional frameworks that enable accountability. It is too early to tell whether the Court’s position will embolden parties to act preemptively, but the track record inspires little optimism.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions