PoSH Law India Update - November '25 Edition

Dive into the key ruling and legal updates in the November '25 edition of PoSH Law India update.

1. Bombay High Court Limits Writ Challenges to Private Workplace IC Proceedings

   
   

   The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a pilot challenging the findings of an Internal Committee of a private airline, holding that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked where an effective statutory remedy exists under the PoSH Act. Justice N.J. Jamadar observed that private employers and their ICs do not qualify as “State” under Article 12 and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction absent a public law element. The Court clarified that IC inquiries are fact-finding processes not bound by strict procedural rules and that alleged lapses, such as denial of cross-examination, do not automatically vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is shown. The petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate mechanism under Section 18 of the PoSH Act, reinforcing the primacy of statutory remedies in workplace harassment disputes.

   
   

2. Women Lawyers Challenge Exclusion of Bar Councils from PoSH Act Before Supreme Court

   
   

   The Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Bombay High Court ruling that held the PoSH Act inapplicable to sexual harassment complaints made by advocates against fellow advocates before Bar Councils. Issuing notice, a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan tagged the matter with a pending petition on the same issue. The plea argues that restricting the PoSH Act to employer–employee relationships undermines its purpose as a special law ensuring dignity and safety in professional spaces. Emphasising Supreme Court directions requiring all professional bodies to constitute Internal Complaints Committees, the petition highlights gaps in protection for women advocates, interns and legal researchers under the Advocates Act. The case raises critical questions on workplace definitions and accountability within the legal profession. Read the Order here.

   
   

3. Supreme Court Withdraws Resume Remark Against Former NUJS Vice-Chancellor in Dismissed PoSH Case

   
   

   The Supreme Court has withdrawn its earlier direction requiring former NUJS Vice-Chancellor Professor Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti to mention a dismissed sexual harassment complaint in his resume. Reconsidering its September 12 judgment, the Court noted that the complaint had been rejected as time-barred and was never adjudicated on merits. A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale held that imposing a continuing stigma without any finding of guilt would be unfair and contrary to principles of natural justice. Clarifying that its earlier remark was intended only to promote transparency, the Court concluded that such a direction could not stand in the absence of substantive adjudication, and ordered its deletion. The ruling underscores the need to balance reputational rights with accountability in PoSH-related proceedings.