The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a Kerala High Court ruling that political parties are not legally bound to set up internal complaints committees (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The Court reiterated that entering a political party is not akin to taking up a job, and hence, there is no employer-employee relationship to invoke obligations under the statute.

 

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice AS Chandurkar dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the Kerala High Court’s decision. The CJI orally remarked:

 

 

The petition, filed by Advocate Yogamaya, sought directions to bring political parties under the framework of the POSH Act. Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the High Court had taken an unduly narrow view of the law and overlooked the broader scope of the definition of “aggrieved woman”.

 

 

Gupta submitted that the definition of “aggrieved woman” under Section 2(a)(i) of the POSH Act is expansive, covering any woman, whether employed or not, who alleges sexual harassment at a workplace. She stressed that it was not necessary for the complainant to have an employment contract to file a complaint under the law.

 

She further argued that political parties, though not “employers” in the traditional sense, still function as organised institutions with offices, hierarchies, and designated roles, thereby falling within the ambit of “workplace” under the Act.

 

 

The bench, however, was unconvinced. The CJI highlighted that political parties differ fundamentally from commercial establishments or state institutions since their members are not employees drawing remuneration. Observing that membership in a political party is voluntary and not contractual employment, the Court declined to extend the obligations of Section 4 of the POSH Act, which mandates the constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee by every employer.

 

The Court thus dismissed the petition, noting that it had no legal basis to compel political parties to form ICCs under the existing framework of the Act.

 

The ruling effectively upholds the 2022 decision of a Kerala High Court division bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly. In that judgment, the High Court had held that political parties could not be equated to “workplaces” under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act since they do not employ members in an employer-employee relationship.

 

The High Court had, however, clarified that film production houses and individual film units qualify as “establishments” under the Act, and therefore must set up Internal Complaints Committees.

 

The litigation traces back to a Public Interest Litigation filed by the Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy (CCRRA), which had sought directions for mandatory ICCs in political parties, naming the Indian National Congress, Bharatiya Janata Party, and Communist Party of India (Marxist) among others as respondents.

 

Though the Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, the matter resurfaced when Advocate Yogamaya filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. An earlier PIL filed by the same petitioner had been withdrawn with liberty to challenge the Kerala High Court’s judgment.