POSH Act in Special and Contested Workplaces

The POSH Act defines workplace and aggrieved woman widely, but its machinery depends on an employer who can constitute a committee and act on its findings. Where that relationship is missing, as with political parties or advocates and their Bar Councils, courts have held the Act does not apply. Where it exists, as on a film set or in a university, they have enforced it. This note covers the test and the main contested sectors.

1. The Deciding Test

Figure 1: Questions courts ask

• Wide definitions. Section 2(o) covers government and private bodies, hospitals, sports venues, dwelling houses and places visited in the course of employment; s.2(a) protects any woman at the workplace, employed or not.
• The limiting factor. Sections 2(f), 2(g), 4 and 6 assume an employer with management, supervision and control, and employees under it.
• Result. Where no one is an employer in that sense, courts have refused to impose an Internal Committee.

2. The Contested Sectors

Figure 2: How courts have answered

• Film industry. In Women in Cinema Collective v State of Kerala (2022), the Kerala High Court held that each film production unit is a workplace and must constitute an Internal Committee. The artists' association AMMA, which does not employ its members, was not bound, though the court urged the industry bodies to set up a joint mechanism.
• Political parties. In 2022, the Kerala High Court held that political parties need not constitute Internal Committees in the absence of an employer-employee relationship. On 15 September 2025, a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai refused a plea to extend the Act to political parties, calling them voluntary associations and leaving the question to Parliament.
• Advocates. In UNS Women Legal Association v Bar Council of India (2025), the Bombay High Court held that advocates are not employees of the Bar Councils, so the Act does not apply to them, though it covers the Councils' own staff. It pointed to disciplinary proceedings under s.35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

3. Higher Education: UGC Regulations, 2015

Figure 3: Internal Complaints Committee in higher educational institutions

The UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 extend the framework to students. The committee includes three students where the matter involves students, alongside faculty, non-teaching staff and a third party member. In Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v Central University of Kerala (2020), the Supreme Court faulted the university for not following the Act and these Regulations.

4. Other Settings

• Sports. Section 2(o) expressly includes sports institutes, stadiums, sports complexes and competition or games venues.
• Domestic workers. A dwelling place or house is a workplace; complaints go to the Local Committee, which forwards a prima facie case to the police (Topic 11)
• Unorganised sector and small units. Workplaces with fewer than ten workers and the unorganised sector are served by the Local Committee (Topic 7)

5. Frequently Asked Questions

Does the POSH Act apply to political parties?

Courts have held that it does not, because a political party is not an employer of its members. The Kerala High Court so held in 2022, and on 15 September 2025 the Supreme Court refused to extend the Act to political parties, leaving the matter to Parliament.

Must a film production house have an Internal Committee?

Yes. In Women in Cinema Collective v State of Kerala (2022), the Kerala High Court held that every production unit is a workplace and must constitute an Internal Committee where the Act requires one.

6. Related Topics

• Topic 3: Key Definitions. Employer, employee and aggrieved woman.
• Topic 5: Workplace, Section 2(o). The extended meaning.
• Topic 7: District Officer and Local Committee. The fallback forum.
• Topic 27: Leading Cases. All the cases together.