The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated 17 September 2025, held that political parties do not qualify as "workplaces" within the meaning of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) and are consequently not required to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice A.S. Chandurkar delivered the ruling in the case of Yogamaya v. State of Kerala.
Background
The case raised the question of whether political parties fall within the statutory definition of "workplace" under the POSH Act, 2013, which requires every employer with ten or more employees to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee to address allegations of sexual harassment. The petitioner, a woman party worker from Kerala, had sought a direction that political parties be mandated to establish ICCs under the Act.
The POSH Act defines "workplace" broadly to include government organisations, private sector entities, cooperative societies, and other establishments. The question was whether a political party, which engages both salaried employees and voluntary workers in its organisational and electoral activities, constitutes an "organisation" or "establishment" within the meaning of the Act such that it would be bound by its provisions.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court ruled as follows:
Political parties not workplaces: The Court held that political parties, as voluntary organisations operating within the democratic framework, do not fall within the statutory definition of "workplace" under the POSH Act. The relationship between a party and its members or workers is not an employer-employee relationship as contemplated by the Act.
No ICC requirement: Consequently, political parties are not required by law to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act. The statutory obligation to establish an ICC arises only in the context of a recognised employer-workplace relationship.
Distinction between party office and party organisation: The Court drew a distinction between a political party's administrative offices — where salaried staff may be employed in a conventional employer-employee relationship — and the broader party organisation comprising elected representatives, office-bearers, and voluntary workers. The former may attract the POSH Act's application; the latter does not.
Legislative domain: The Bench observed that extending workplace harassment protections to political parties in their organisational capacity would require legislative intervention. The Court could not expand the statutory definition beyond what Parliament had enacted.
Implications for Practitioners
This ruling has significant consequences for women associated with political parties. While party employees working in administrative offices may still access the POSH Act framework, the vast majority of women engaged in political work as volunteers, office-bearers, or party workers fall outside the Act's protection.
Employment law practitioners should note the distinction drawn between party offices and the broader party organisation. Where a political party maintains office premises with salaried staff, an ICC may still be required for that specific workplace, even though the party organisation as a whole is not covered.
The judgment may catalyse legislative action to address the gap identified by the Court. Practitioners advising women's rights organisations and political parties alike should monitor any proposed amendments to the POSH Act or the introduction of a separate regulatory framework addressing harassment within political organisations. Until such legislation is enacted, women in political parties must rely on general criminal law remedies rather than the specialised POSH Act mechanism.