Advocates not employees of Bar Councils; complaints committee under PoSH Act not applicable: Bombay HC
The court said that Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) applies when employer-employee relationship exists. Therefore, provisions related to formation of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) are not applicable to advocates.
'However, the same would apply in so far as it pertains to employees of the BCI as well as BCMG,' the HC noted.
It added that the women advocates can raise their grievances, including complaints of sexual harassment under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which prescribes punishment for professional as well as other misconduct by lawyers.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne disposed of PIL filed in 2017 by the UNS Women Legal Association, which sought formation of permanent grievance redressal mechanism to redress sexual harassment complaints against advocates.
Senior advocate Milind Sathe representing BCMG stated that local committees have been formed under Section 6 of the PoSH Act across all districts led by District Magistrates or Collectors.
Sathe also submitted that Section 35 of the 1961 law provides any person including woman advocate to lodge complaint before the state bar council for misconduct, including acts of sexual harassment. Advocate Shekhar Jagtap for BCI also submitted that it has formed panels under the law.
'It is evident that the provisions of the Act apply to a case of an employer which presupposes that there has to be an employer and employee relationship. Neither BCI nor BCMG is an employer of advocates. Therefore, the provisions of the 2013 Act do not apply in so far as it pertains to advocates,' the HC noted.
'However, the same would apply insofar as it pertains to employees of the BCI and BCMG. In view of aforesaid, no further orders are required to be passed in the PIL and the same is disposed of,' the court held.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Sanjay Raut slams Maharashtra's Public Safety Bill as tool to suppress dissent
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut on Sunday (July 20, 2025) launched a blistering attack on the Devendra Fadnavis government over the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, claiming it poses a direct threat to civil liberties and democratic expression in the State. Writing in his weekly Rokhthok column in the party mouthpiece Saamana, Mr. Raut described the legislation as a tool crafted not for public safety, but to serve political and corporate interests. 'This is not a Jan Suraksha Bill, it is a BJP Suraksha Bill,' he wrote, alleging the government rushed the bill through the legislature without adequate debate. According to Mr. Raut, the Bill—passed during the recently concluded monsoon session of the Assembly—grants sweeping powers to the police and government to arrest individuals for acts deemed to disturb 'public order,' a phrase he said is deliberately vague and prone to misuse. He warned that NGOs, civil society groups, tribal activists, and those opposing large corporate projects like Gautam Adani's mining operations spread from Chandrapur to Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand forests could now be easily targeted under the new law. The Maharashtra Assembly on July 10, 2025, passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, aimed at preventing 'unlawful activities of Left Wing Extremist organisations or similar groups'. The Bill will now be tabled in the Legislative Council. 'I assure the House that we will not allow the misuse of this law. I request the House to pass this Bill unanimously,' Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who tabled the Bill. Despite opposition from the Communist Party of India (CPI) and objections by other parties, Speaker Rahul Narvekar declared that the Bill, put to vote through a voice vote, was approved by a majority. With the passage of the Bill in both Houses, Maharashtra will become the fifth State after Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha to enact a public security law. The law will impose punishments ranging from two to seven years in prison for members of unlawful organisations. Offences under the Act will be cognisable and non-bailable in nature, and grant the government the authority to seize and forfeit funds belonging to such groups. Mr. Raut further criticised the government's intent behind the bill, saying it is aimed at silencing protests in areas such as Dharavi, where residents have been resisting redevelopment and displacement. 'The Dharavi Rehabilitation Project is the world's biggest land scam. The original residents will be uprooted from their rightful place and the leaders who are fighting for their rights will be labelled as 'Urban Naxalites' and imprisoned under the act. If people cannot protest peacefully against injustice, what remains of democracy?' the column said. Highlighting the double standards of the ruling coalition, Raut questioned why the government was turning a blind eye to hate speeches and violent acts by right-wing elements, while seeking to criminalise dissent from marginalised communities and activists. He also accused the government of using the bill as a pretext to consolidate power before the upcoming civic elections, particularly in Mumbai. 'The law is being used to intimidate those who dare speak against the regime or its business allies,' he claimed. 'Such laws attack the soul of democracy. If this bill becomes law, it will be a dark day for Maharashtra,' he added.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Temples of social justice
Recently, a political controversy erupted in Tamil Nadu on the issue of diverting temple funds for building colleges. Beyond the political debates, the issue throws light on a unique social justice model around the regulation of secular practices associated with religion. This model, predominantly developed in the erstwhile Madras Presidency, draws strength from a 200-year-old legislative framework which continues till date. It has gained more acceptance in south India. As elections approach in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, clarity on the issue will help diffuse attempts to polarise voters around it. Religious endowments law Through the Religious Endowment and Escheats Regulation 1817, the East India Company set up the earliest legislative architecture around regulation of religious endowments. When the British Crown assumed direct control over Indian territories in 1858, Queen Victoria issued a proclamation stating that the sovereign would restrict interference in religious affairs. This was necessary as there was concern about losing face from the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny, which was triggered by religious issues. However, the withdrawal of the British government from religious affairs was not complete. In fact, in the Madras Presidency, various British officials argued for continued oversight of religious endowments. Finally, the British government settled for a balanced approach: the sovereign would not interfere with practices that were essentially religious, such as rituals, but would exercise control over the lands and secular aspects of the religious endowments. The idea of the government supervising religious institutions came to be crystallised when the Justice Party was elected in 1920. One of the earliest legislative interventions by the Justicites was Bill No. 12 of 1922: Hindu Religious Endowments Act. When it was introduced in the Madras Legislative Council, it faced opposition, mainly due to the provision in the law that allowed surplus temple funds to be diverted for other purposes. The nub of the issue was whether funds provided to a temple could be used for secular purposes. The matter was debated and settled in 1925, when the law was enacted. Since then, every revised version of the plenary law, including the current law — The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 — has retained the provision of surplus funds. Also read | Activist alleges 'criminal misappropriation' of temple funds by T.N. HR&CE Dept, Madras High Court calls for response Section 36 of the 1959 Act permits the trustees of religious institutions to appropriate any surplus funds for any purposes listed under the law, with the prior sanction of the Commissioner. 'Surplus' means any amount remaining after adequate provisions have been made for the maintenance of the temple and training of its officials. The Act also empowers the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner to appropriate funds in cases where the original purpose has become impossible to fulfil. Endowments to temples have a long and rich history. Temples received lavish donations from the sovereign rulers from as far back as in 970 AD, when the Chola empire was at its peak. Historian Anirudh Kanisetti writes that Sembiyan Mahadevi, a Chola queen, made strategic donations of land and kind to temples. The practice continued during the Vijayanagara kingdom. Temples were not just places of worship; they were socio-cultural hubs and were also used for educational purposes. This is confirmed by the inscriptions on temple walls and the spacious mandapams (pillared halls) which were used to hold educational or cultural events. So the original intent argument would also support the theory of utilising temple resources for educational purposes. The 1959 Act has been tested and upheld by constitutional courts. Among the permissible uses of surplus funds under the 1959 Act is the establishment and maintenance of universities or colleges (Section 66). These educational institutions are also required to make available the study of the Hindu religion or Hindu temple architecture. Seen within this framework, building colleges from temple funds is not only legal, but a logical extension of these provisions. Social justice legacy The controversy around the use of temple funds cannot be restricted to discussing legal propositions, however; it also carries ideological and sociopolitical significance. In the pre-colonial era, the motivation for the rulers to support large-scale endowments was that the temples acted as channels through which State resources could be allotted for important welfare projects. Through colonial rule, the British East India Company and the Crown viewed sovereign involvement in the management of temple affairs as necessary for reasons of revenue and maintenance of local control. Over the last century, the Self-Respect Movement, which emerged from the Madras Presidency, viewed the regulation of temples and oversight of their resources as a critical feature of anti-caste reforms. Without this, there would have been no temple entry legislation in 1936 and 1947. Today, Tamil Nadu and Kerala are among the few States where governments have appointed priests from backward classes after a prolonged legal struggle. Ultimately, any argument against government control of temple affairs would be striking at the root of social justice. The role of the government in ensuring that surplus funds are appropriated in a lawful manner is settled. Any reversal of this would only result in a set back of the long legacy of social justice and religious reforms that south India has pioneered.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
2006 train blasts: Bombay HC to pronounce verdict on death confirmation pleas today
Over five months after it reserved verdict on death confirmation pleas filed by the state and appeals by the accused against their conviction in the 7/11 train blasts case of 2006, the Bombay High Court will pronounce the judgement Monday. After conducting hearings over six months, special bench of Justices Anil S Kilor and Shyam C Chandak on January 31 this year reserved its verdict on pleas filed in the high court. In 2015, the special court convicted the accused who have been in jail for over 18 years. On July 11, 2006, a series of bombs ripped through seven western suburban coaches of a train, killing 189 commuters and injuring 824. After an over eight-year trial, a special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) in October 2015 awarded death penalty to five of the convicts and life terms to seven others. Death row convicts Kamal Ansari from Bihar, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh from Mumbai, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui from Thane, Naveed Hussain Khan from Secunderabad and Asif Khan from Jalgaon in Maharashtra were found guilty of planting the bombs. Those awarded life term were Tanveer Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim Ansari, Mohammed Majid Mohammed Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam Shaikh, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh and Zameer Ahmed Latiur Rehman Shaikh. One of the accused, Wahid Shaikh, was acquitted by the trial court after nine years in jail. The Maharashtra government in 2015 approached the HC with pleas seeking confirmation of death penalty granted to five convicts. On the other hand, the convicts filed appeals challenging the special court order. Ansari, one of the convicts on death row, died due to Covid-19 in Nagpur prison in 2021. As the accused sought speedy disposal of the matter, the HC in July 2023, constituted a special bench led by Justice Kilor, which conducted regular hearings through more than 75 sittings. The lawyers representing the convicts argued that their 'extra-judicial confessional statements' obtained by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) through 'torture' were inadmissible under the law. They also argued that the accused were falsely implicated, innocent and were languishing in jail for 18 years without substantial evidence and their prime years were gone in incarceration. The appellants said that the trial court erred in convicting them and therefore the said order be set aside. The Maharashtra government opposed the appeals by convicts and claimed that the probing agency had provided sufficient evidence to establish it was 'rarest of the rare' case to sentence the accused to death penalty.
