Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.M. Manoj set aside the report of an Internal Complaints Committee constituted by the Kollam Bar Association after holding that the committee’s formation did not meet the objective and requirements of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The case arose from a complaint by a woman member of the association alleging sexual harassment by another member during a professional visit connected with notarisation at the latter’s premises. The Court held that a bar association is not an “employer” for the purposes of the Act and therefore could not constitute an ICC under the statutory scheme, leaving other issues on the merits open.

The writ petition arose from a complaint of alleged misconduct made by a woman advocate against another advocate, both being members of a Bar Association. The complaint related to an incident stated to have occurred at the residence of the petitioner, which was also used partly as an advocate’s office, when the complainant visited for notarisation of documents. Parallelly, a criminal case was registered by the police on the basis of the same allegations.

Also Read: Demolition Affecting Private Property Under Article 300A Must Be Supported By Clear, Cogent, Site-Specific Evidence Of Illegality: Supreme Court

Following receipt of the complaint, the Bar Association forwarded the matter to an Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The Committee conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. Consequentially, the Bar Association placed the petitioner under suspension pending further action.

The petitioner challenged the legality of the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee, the enquiry conducted by it, the report submitted, and the suspension order. It was contended that the Bar Association was not an “employer” under the Act and lacked authority to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee. The respondents contended that the Act applied even in the absence of a strict employer–employee relationship and that the Bar Association was competent to act.

The dispute before the Court was confined to examining the legality of the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee and the sustainability of actions taken based on its report.

The Court observed that “the primary issues to be considered in this Writ Petition are the legality of the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the enquiry conducted by the said committee, and the challenge to the suspension order.”

While examining the statutory framework, the Court recorded that “Section 4 mandates that every employer shall constitute an Internal Complaints Committee at the workplace, formalised by an order in writing.” The Court stated that the decisive issue was whether the Bar Association could be treated as an employer for the purposes of the Act.

The Court observed that “Section 14 prescribes the duties of Bar Associations, which include maintaining a register of Advocates and intimating the Bar Council of any professional fraud. Thereby, it can be seen that Bar Associations are officially recognized only for the purpose of the Advocates' Welfare Fund. Since the welfare of advocates is one of the primary duties of the Bar Council, it can be argued that the Bar Association also attains the legal status of a statutory body with respect to the Welfare Fund.”

On the definition of employer, the Court stated that “The only mention with respect to the Bar Association is found under the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1980, and that is solely for the purpose of maintaining a roll of persons who are also on the rolls of the Bar Council of Kerala… The authority constituting the employer is essentially the person discharging the contractual obligation with respect to his or her employees. As far as an advocate is concerned, the petitioner's role does not qualify under any of the authorities mentioned in the said provisions. Hence, the formation of the ICC does not qualify under the mandate of Section 4 of the PoSH Act.”

With respect to the enquiry and report, the Court stated that “the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee by the first respondent is itself against the objective and specific requirements of Section 4 of the PoSH Act.” It further recorded that “the report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee has no legal basis to stand upon.”

The Court clarified that “the rest of the contentions concerning the facts and merits of the alleged incident are left open,” and confined its determination strictly to the legality of the Committee’s constitution.

Also Read: Non-Paddy Crop Cultivation Permission Doesn’t Allow Land Conversion Or Land Record Tenure Change: Kerala High Court

The Court directed that “the report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee has no legal basis to stand upon. Accordingly, the report should be set aside.”

“In the light of the above findings, I do not find it necessary to address the remaining contentions raised by the respective counsel on both sides. The rest of the contentions concerning the facts and merits of the alleged incident are left open.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. S. Sreekumar, Senior Advocate, instructed by Adv. S. Sreekumar (Kollam), with assisting counsel

For the Respondents: Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, Advocate; Smt. T.S. Maya (Thiyyadiyil), Advocate; Sri. C.M. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate

Case Title: XXX v. Kollam Bar Association & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:6220
Case Number: WP(C) No. 39539 of 2024
Bench: Justice P.M. Manoj