The Gap in Current Protections
For over a decade, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 has served as the primary statute governing workplace safety across most sectors in India. It mandates that every employer establish an Internal Complaints Committee, conduct awareness programs, and provide a redressal mechanism for complaints. Yet the statute's language and implementation have been framed around traditional workplaces—offices, factories, hospitals, and commercial establishments.
The legal profession operates differently. Courtrooms are public forums. Judges sit on the bench. Advocates move between courts, tribunals, and legal chambers. The power dynamics differ sharply from a corporate office or factory floor. A woman advocate may face harassment not only from colleagues but also from opposing counsel, litigants, court staff, and judicial officers in settings where formal hierarchies are less clear-cut than in conventional employment structures.
Moreover, the existing Supreme Court regulations were confined to that institution alone. They did not extend to the High Courts or District Courts, where the vast majority of India's legal work takes place. A woman advocate practicing in Delhi High Court or a District Court in Maharashtra had no comparable institutional framework addressing sexual harassment specific to her working environment. The 2013 Act provided a baseline, but it was generic—not calibrated to the realities of judicial forums.
Reconstitution of Internal Committees and Ongoing Scrutiny
The Supreme Court has taken concrete steps to strengthen its own mechanisms. In October 2026, the Court reconstituted its Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC), appointing Justice B.V. Nagarathna as Chairperson, effective October 6, 2026. This administrative action aims to reinforce prevention, prohibition, and redressal of sexual harassment within the Supreme Court itself.
Simultaneously, the Court is examining the mechanisms available to women advocates facing sexual harassment across different courts and forums. This examination is taking place in the case of Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India, W.P. (C) No. 805/2025. The case has seen hearings throughout 2026, with a hearing held on September 18, 2026, and the next scheduled for November 25, 2026. The ongoing nature of this litigation signals that the Court is treating the issue not as a one-time pronouncement but as a live, evolving matter requiring sustained judicial attention.
Why a Separate Framework Matters
The Supreme Court's call for a separate framework reflects an understanding that sexual harassment in the legal profession has contextual dimensions that generic workplace legislation cannot fully address. Consider the advocate who appears before a judge who subjects her to unwanted comments about her appearance. Consider the woman lawyer in a tribunal who is undermined or dismissed by opposing counsel in ways that would constitute harassment if they occurred in an office but are normalized in adversarial settings. Consider court staff working in an environment where formal complaint mechanisms may feel inaccessible or unsafe because they work directly under judicial officers.
A tailored framework would need to account for these realities. It would need to clarify who constitutes the "employer" in a system where advocates are often self-employed or work in unstructured partnerships. It would need to establish clear complaint channels that do not put women at risk of professional retaliation. It would need to define what constitutes harassment in adversarial contexts while protecting legitimate vigorous advocacy.
The bench explicitly called upon the parties involved to study the Supreme Court's own 2013 regulations. This was not a casual reference. The Court was directing attention to existing institutional practice—the rules, procedures, and safeguards the Supreme Court itself had developed—as a foundation for drafting broader guidelines. In other words, the Court was saying: here is what we have done within our own institution; now expand and adapt this model to cover the entire judicial system.
The Road Ahead
The call for a separate framework is not yet a new law or rule. It is a judicial direction. What happens next will depend on multiple actors: the Supreme Court itself, the High Courts, the Bar Council of India, and potentially Parliament if legislative change becomes necessary.
The Bar Council of India, which regulates the legal profession and maintains professional standards for advocates, may play a central role. The Council could develop model regulations or guidelines applicable across High Courts and District Courts. Individual High Courts could adopt their own detailed rules within any overarching framework. Tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities—which employ judges and support staff but may not have formal HR departments—would need specific guidance on how to establish complaints committees and investigation procedures.
The timeline remains unclear. The Supreme Court did not announce a deadline for the formulation of these new regulations. However, given that Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India is scheduled for further hearing in November 2026, the Court may provide more concrete direction at that stage.
What Comes Next for Women Legal Professionals
For women advocates, judges, and court staff, this development signals institutional recognition that their safety and dignity at work require more than a one-size-fits-all statute. It acknowledges that the legal profession, for all its principles of justice and fairness, has not been immune to harassment and misconduct.
A separate framework could establish clearer definitions of prohibited conduct in legal settings. It could create safer complaint mechanisms—perhaps including options to report to bodies outside the immediate court hierarchy. It could mandate regular training for judges, advocates, and court staff on preventing harassment and responding appropriately to complaints. It could establish time limits for investigation and resolution, ensuring that complaints do not languish indefinitely.
It could also protect against retaliation. A woman advocate who complains about harassment by a judge or senior counsel faces real professional risks. A framework with clear safeguards would need to explicitly prohibit retaliation and provide remedies if it occurs.
The reconstitution of the Supreme Court's own complaints committee and the ongoing litigation in Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India suggest that the Court intends to move beyond words to action. Whether a comprehensive new framework emerges—and how quickly—will determine whether this judicial direction translates into real protection for the women who work within India's courts and tribunals.
