Matter Within Domain Of Policy: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Seeking Inclusion Of Political Parties Under POSH Act

Today, the Supreme Court observed that the issue of application of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) on political parties is within the domain policy.

The Court also suggested that the women Parliamentarians may present a private Bill on the issue.

An Public Interest Litigation was filed seeking the application of the POSH Act to political parties.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the matter to include political parties within the scope of political parties is a matter of policy and remarked, "It's a matter within the domain of Policies...At least, we have been publicly saying that we must, all the three institutions should work within parameters...of the Constitution.

Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for the Petitioner, apprised the Supreme Court that the matter is an interesting issue regarding POSH.

At the outset CJI Gavai expressed the concerns regarding the nature of issue involved, including the women in Executive.

Gupta submitted that earlier the Supreme Court permitted them to make a representation to appropriate authority. "We approached the ECI and they did not respond", Gupta submitted.

CJI Gavai said, "It's a matter within the domain of Policies..."

CJI suggested the Petitioner to approach Parliamentarians regarding the issue. CJI remarked, "At least, we have been publicly saying that we must, all the three institutions should work within parameters...of the Constitution."

Gupta continued to insist regarding the issue raised in the PIL , however, CJI suggested that there are many women Parliamentarians and they can be asked to "present a Private Bill."

Gupta continued to submit, "An important issue like this where they are not acting upon."

CJI recorded in the order that the prayer made in the petition was exclusively within the competence of the Legislation or within the domain of policy of Executive.

"That's why we are not inclined to entertain", added CJI.

Upon which Gupta submitted that the prayer in petition was not to direct the Legislation and submitted, "It is not the scope of the writ petition. The scope of the writ petition is the interpretation of the provision because Kerala High Court in one of the judgments..."

Gupta insisted that only the interpretation of three provisions: workplace, employer and employee in the POSH Act is required in the light of women in political parties.

CJI told Gupta if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the High Court's judgement they may challenge the same.

Accordingly, Gupta withdrew the petition with the liberty to challenge the Kerala High Court judgement.

"The Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the petition with further liberty to take such steps as advised in law", the Court recorded in its order.

Case Background

Earlier, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner seeking the application of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) to political parties to approach the Election Commission of India (ECI) first.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court stated, "The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority (Election Commission of India). In case the petitioner's grievance is not effectively addressed, she shall be at liberty to approach a judicial forum in accordance with law."

Cause Title: Yogamaya MG v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 695/2025 PIL-W)

Click here to read/download Order