{"id":375166,"date":"2026-02-09T14:00:23","date_gmt":"2026-02-09T08:30:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=375166"},"modified":"2026-02-09T13:18:44","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T07:48:44","slug":"bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Bar Association not ’employer’ under POSH Act: Kerala HC sets aside Internal Complaint Committee’s report on alleged harassment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Kerala High Court:<\/span> In a writ petition centred on the legality of an Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’) constituted by Kollam Bar Association (‘KBA’) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013<\/a> (‘POSH Act’), a Single Judge Bench of P.M. Manoj<\/span>, J., held that only an ‘employer’ of a ‘workplace’ could constitute an ICC as per Section 4<\/a> of the POSH Act<\/a>. Since bar association is not an ‘employer’ within the meaning of Section 2(g)<\/a> of the POSH Act<\/a>, the ICC constituted by KBA was contrary to the POSH Act. Accordingly, the Court set aside the ICC’s report on the alleged sexual harassment.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The petitioner and Respondent 3 (‘victim’) were members of the KBA, which was registered as a Company in 1937 under Section 26 of the Travancore Companies Regulation 1 of 1092. The victim preferred a complaint before KBA alleging misconduct on the part of the petitioner when she had visited him to discuss a document’s notarisation. A police complaint was also filed which led to the registration of an FIR alleging offences under Sections 354<\/a>, 354A(1)(i)<\/a>, 354(1)(ii)<\/a>, and 354(1)(iv)<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’). Subsequently, based on the complaint preferred by the victim on 15-6-2024, the President of KBA constituted an ICC as provided under Section 4<\/a> of the POSH Act<\/a>. The ICC submitted a report after enquiry, which was challenged in the present petition. The petitioner also sought relief against KBA’s suspension order.<\/p>\n

The petitioner argued that the incident admittedly took place in his private residence and not at a ‘workplace’. It was contended that KBA was not an employer of either party, that no employer-employee relationship existed, and that KBA functioned more like a club than an establishment covered under the POSH Act. The petitioner further argued that KBA employed only one woman employee and therefore had no obligation to constitute an ICC, and in such a case the statute contemplated recourse to a Local Committee where establishments had fewer than ten employees. He also emphasised that disciplinary jurisdiction over advocates lay with the Bar Council of Kerala and not with an ICC created by KBA.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, KBA stressed that it acted bona fide, particularly because the matter involved allegations by a junior member against a senior member, and because the issue had attracted widespread media attention. It stated that the petitioner never objected to the ICC’s jurisdiction at the initial stages, participated in the enquiry, and raised the challenge only after realising that the ICC’s report was unfavourable.<\/p>\n

The ICC argued that the writ petition was defective due to non-joinder of necessary parties, because Rule 7 of the POSH Rules do not provide representative capacity to the Chairperson in legal proceedings. It was argued that POSH Act does not require a strict employer—employee relationship, and an ‘aggrieved woman’ may be anyone who alleges harassment, and therefore, it was not necessary that the victim should be an employee of either the petitioner or KBA. It was submitted that the petitioner’s residence was also being used for professional purposes, and therefore, it could not be treated as a purely private place or residential dwelling.<\/p>\n

Similarly, the victim argued that the writ petition itself was not maintainable, since KBA was not a ‘State’ under Article 12<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>. She further contended that she was subjected to sexual harassment at the petitioner’s office, an advocate who operated his office from his residence. Since her visit was not for any personal purposes, the incident could be treated as sexual harassment which occurred during an official visit to the petitioner’s office. She submitted that KBA was empowered to proceed against dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court observed that the Bar Council of Kerala is the responsible body for the Advocates within the territory of the State to enrol a person, maintain that person in the rolls, take disciplinary action against them, and is also responsible for their welfare. The Court opined that although the Advocates Act, 1961, does not specifically mention anything about Bar Associations, the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1980, provides for their registration and recognition and prescribes its duties which include maintaining a register of Advocates and intimating the Bar Council of any professional fraud.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Abdul Azeez<\/span> v. Alappuzha Bar Association<\/span>, 1992 SCC OnLine Ker 401<\/span><\/a>, and Jose Kuttiyani<\/span> v. High Court Advocates Association<\/span>, 2003 SCC OnLine Ker 328<\/span><\/a>, and held that the Bar Associations are amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court considered Section 2(g)<\/a> of the POSH Act<\/a> and observed that as far as an advocate is concerned, the petitioner’s role does not qualify under any of the authorities mentioned in the said provision. The Court opined that ‘employer’ meant someone who exercised control over a workplace in the context of an employment relationship and discharged contractual obligations towards employees.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the Bar Association could not be treated as an ‘employer’ and therefore, the formation of the ICC did not qualify under the mandate of Section 4<\/a> of the POSH Act<\/a>. The Court held that the constitution of the ICC by KBA was itself against the objective and specific requirements of Section 4<\/a> of the POSH Act<\/a>, and consequently, the report submitted by the ICC had no legal basis to stand upon.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court set aside ICC’s report without addressing the other contentions.<\/p>\n

[X v. Kollam Bar Assn., 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 1199<\/a>, decided on 27-1-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioner:<\/span> S. Sreekumar (Kollam), S. Navas, K. Vijayan, Namitha Rajesh, Nithya V.D., S. Sreekumar (SR.), Advocates.<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> K. Siju, T.S. Maya (Thiyadil), C.M. Mohammed Iquabal, S. Abhilash, Anjana Kannath, Mariya Jose, Istinaf Abdullah, Shehsad A.S., P. Abdul Nishad, Dhilna Dileep, Thasneem A.P., K.A. Sunitha, Advocates.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The term ‘employer’ means someone who exercises control over a workplace in the context of an employment relationship and discharges contractual obligations towards employees.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67538,"featured_media":375167,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[51197,98480,31857,44522,98477,98482,2523,98481,61463,98479,98478,2850,37205,32966,7272],"class_list":["post-375166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-advocates-act-1961","tag-aggrieved-woman","tag-employer","tag-internal-complaints-committee","tag-justice-p-m-manoj","tag-kerala-advocates-welfare-fund-act-1980","tag-Kerala_High_Court","tag-kollam-bar-association","tag-prohibition-and-redressal-act-2013","tag-section-2g-posh-act","tag-section-4-posh-act","tag-sexual_harassment","tag-sexual-harassment-of-women-at-workplace-prevention","tag-workplace","tag-writ-jurisdiction"],"yoast_head":"\nBar Association not 'employer' under POSH Act: Kerala HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Kerala High Court observes that Bar Association is not 'employer' under POSH Act and ICC constituted by Kollam Bar Association is illegal.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bar Association not 'employer' under POSH Act: Kerala HC sets aside Internal Complaint Committee's report on alleged harassment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Kerala High Court observes that Bar Association is not 'employer' under POSH Act and ICC constituted by Kollam Bar Association is illegal.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-09T08:30:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Bar-Association-is-not-employer.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sunaina\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Bar Association not 'employer' under POSH Act: Kerala HC sets aside Internal Complaint Committee's report on alleged harassment\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sunaina\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Sunaina\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f\"},\"headline\":\"Bar Association not ’employer’ under POSH Act: Kerala HC sets aside Internal Complaint Committee’s report on alleged harassment\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-09T08:30:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":984,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/Bar-Association-is-not-employer.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Advocates Act 1961\",\"aggrieved woman\",\"Employer\",\"Internal Complaints Committee\",\"Justice P.M. Manoj\",\"Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act 1980\",\"Kerala High Court\",\"Kollam Bar Association\",\"Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013\",\"Section 2(g) POSH Act\",\"Section 4 POSH Act\",\"sexual harassment\",\"Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention\",\"Workplace\",\"writ jurisdiction\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/\",\"name\":\"Bar Association not 'employer' under POSH Act: Kerala HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/Bar-Association-is-not-employer.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-09T08:30:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f\"},\"description\":\"Kerala High Court observes that Bar Association is not 'employer' under POSH Act and ICC constituted by Kollam Bar Association is illegal.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/Bar-Association-is-not-employer.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/Bar-Association-is-not-employer.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Bar Association is not employer\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/09\\\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bar Association not ’employer’ under POSH Act: Kerala HC sets aside Internal Complaint Committee’s report on alleged harassment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f\",\"name\":\"Sunaina\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sunaina\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/sunaina\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bar Association not 'employer' under POSH Act: Kerala HC | SCC Times","description":"Kerala High Court observes that Bar Association is not 'employer' under POSH Act and ICC constituted by Kollam Bar Association is illegal.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bar Association not 'employer' under POSH Act: Kerala HC sets aside Internal Complaint Committee's report on alleged harassment","og_description":"Kerala High Court observes that Bar Association is not 'employer' under POSH Act and ICC constituted by Kollam Bar Association is illegal.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-02-09T08:30:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Bar-Association-is-not-employer.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sunaina","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Bar Association not 'employer' under POSH Act: Kerala HC sets aside Internal Complaint Committee's report on alleged harassment","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sunaina","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/"},"author":{"name":"Sunaina","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f"},"headline":"Bar Association not ’employer’ under POSH Act: Kerala HC sets aside Internal Complaint Committee’s report on alleged harassment","datePublished":"2026-02-09T08:30:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/"},"wordCount":984,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Bar-Association-is-not-employer.webp","keywords":["Advocates Act 1961","aggrieved woman","Employer","Internal Complaints Committee","Justice P.M. Manoj","Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Act 1980","Kerala High Court","Kollam Bar Association","Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013","Section 2(g) POSH Act","Section 4 POSH Act","sexual harassment","Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention","Workplace","writ jurisdiction"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/","name":"Bar Association not 'employer' under POSH Act: Kerala HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Bar-Association-is-not-employer.webp","datePublished":"2026-02-09T08:30:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f"},"description":"Kerala High Court observes that Bar Association is not 'employer' under POSH Act and ICC constituted by Kollam Bar Association is illegal.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Bar-Association-is-not-employer.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Bar-Association-is-not-employer.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Bar Association is not employer"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/09\/bar-association-not-employer-under-posh-act-ker-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bar Association not ’employer’ under POSH Act: Kerala HC sets aside Internal Complaint Committee’s report on alleged harassment"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f","name":"Sunaina","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sunaina"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/sunaina\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Bar-Association-is-not-employer.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":360481,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/17\/supreme-court-kerala-hc-political-parties-not-workplace-posh-act-2013\/","url_meta":{"origin":375166,"position":0},"title":"Supreme Court upholds Kerala HC Verdict: Political Parties are not workplace and not liable to constitute Internal Complaints Committee under POSH Act","author":"Apoorva","date":"September 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court upheld the Kerala HC decision that political parties are not legally obligated to establish an Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act, because there is no employer-employee relationship among the members of political parties, and they do not meet the criteria of a \"workplace\" as defined under the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Political Parties not workplace","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Political-Parties-not-workplace.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Political-Parties-not-workplace.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Political-Parties-not-workplace.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Political-Parties-not-workplace.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":276542,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/03\/posh-delhi-high-court-baffling-to-see-that-a-law-graduate-himself-demands-assistance-of-person-with-legal-background-for-enquiry-before-icc\/","url_meta":{"origin":375166,"position":1},"title":"[POSH] Delhi High Court | Baffling to see that a law graduate himself demands assistance of person with legal background for enquiry before Internal Complaints Committee","author":"Editor","date":"November 3, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"If the Court would allow such an interpretation, then this provision would become redundant, and a floodgate of law graduates, who may not be enrolled with the bar councils to become an \u2018advocate\u2019 but are still practicing law, would pour in. The purpose of keeping the proceedings fact-based and free\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"competitive exam","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":353659,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/17\/bom-hc-advocates-not-covered-under-posh-act-not-employees-of-bar-council\/","url_meta":{"origin":375166,"position":2},"title":"Advocates are not Bar Council employees, hence outside the ambit of POSH Act: Bombay High Court","author":"Editor","date":"July 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is evident that the provisions of the POSH Act apply where the relationship of employer and employee exists, thus, neither Bar Council of India nor Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa can be said to be employer of advocates.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Advocates not covered under POSH Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Advocates-not-covered-under-POSH-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Advocates-not-covered-under-POSH-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Advocates-not-covered-under-POSH-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Advocates-not-covered-under-POSH-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270774,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/28\/whether-s-5-limitation-act-1963-apply-to-appeals-under-s-18-of-posh-act-2013-delhi-high-court-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":375166,"position":3},"title":"Whether S. 5 Limitation Act, 1963 apply to appeals under S. 18 of POSH Act, 2013? Delhi High Court answers","author":"Editor","date":"July 28, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: C Hari Shankar, J. opined that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply in respect of appeals preferred under Section 18 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal), Act 2013 (\u2018POSH Act') because if a Court were to refuse to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":336749,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/06\/sc-issues-notice-on-pil-for-security-tenure-protection-posh-members\/","url_meta":{"origin":375166,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court issues notice on PIL for security of tenure & protection to POSH Committee members in private sector","author":"Editor","date":"December 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The PIL raised concerns that members of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) [constituted under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013] do not have protection from arbitrary and retaliatory actions such as arbitrary termination at private workplaces.","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Protection of POSH\u2019s ICC members","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Protection-of-POSHs-ICC-members.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Protection-of-POSHs-ICC-members.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Protection-of-POSHs-ICC-members.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Protection-of-POSHs-ICC-members.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":240363,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/09\/ker-hc-will-provisions-of-posh-2013-cover-only-an-express-or-implied-sexual-advance-sexual-undertone-or-unwelcome-behaviour-which-has-a-sexual-tone-behind-it-under-its-umbrella-lets-read-what\/","url_meta":{"origin":375166,"position":5},"title":"Ker HC | Will provisions of POSH, 2013 cover only an express or implied sexual advance, sexual undertone or unwelcome behaviour which has a sexual tone behind it under its umbrella? Let’s read what HC says","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 9, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Kerala High Court:\u00a0The Division Bench of A.M. Shaffique and Gopinath P., JJ., while observing a matter in regard to sexual harassment at workplace stated that, In order to take action under the 2013 Act, the acts complained of should come within the purview of Section 2(n) and Section 3 of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/375166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67538"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=375166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/375166\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/375167"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=375166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=375166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=375166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}