The Indian judiciary laid the foundation for the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) law through the landmark 1997 Vishaka judgment, yet it is bereft of a statutory redressal mechanism for its women lawyers.Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC) was established in courts and judicial institutions across the country, including the Supreme Court and various high courts, to prevent, prohibit and redress complaints of sexual harassment.The Bombay High court last year ruled that the POSH Act does not apply to practising advocates filing complaints against the Bar councils or other lawyers, because an employer-employee relationship is absent. The court instead asked the aggrieved to refer to Section 35 of the Advocates Act to seek remedy.The Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA) has filed a plea in the apex court challenging the HC verdict, arguing that Section 35 handles professional misconduct rather than specific sexual harassment grievances.Talking to The Tribune in an e-mail interview, senior advocate SC Women Lawyers Association president Mahalakshmi Pavani said the need to bring the legal profession within a meaningful POSH framework was both urgent and fundamental.“My own experience as a GSICC member has reinforced that institutional mechanisms matter enormously. A woman must be able to speak without fearing that reporting harassment will jeopardise her professional relationships, briefs, appearances or reputation. In a profession that is built substantially on networks and professional hierarchies, that fear can be acute,” she said.Pavani agreed that the professional environment in which women lawyers work is not confined to a conventional employer-employee relationship. However, she added: “The absence of a traditional employer cannot mean the absence of a workplace or remedy.”“Section 35 of the Advocates Act is essentially a disciplinary provision governing professional conduct before the Bar Council. It does not create the specialised, confidential, time-bound and survivor-sensitive mechanism contemplated under the POSH Act for complaints regarding sexual harassment,” she argued.The senior lawyer added that a woman facing sexual harassment could not be told that a general disciplinary provision was an adequate substitute for a statutory framework specifically designed to address sexual harassment at workplace.“We must also distinguish between bringing judges personally under the POSH Act and ensuring that the judicial institution is subject to a robust, independent and accountable framework against sexual harassment. The answer must be an institutionally appropriate mechanism, not an absence of one,” she added.Another pertinent question is how is POSH different from GSICC when both laws do not prescribe any kind of punishment for the wrongdoer.Lawyer Smitha Nair said although the GSICC was not a toothless body, there was a need to continually strengthen its mandate, procedural clarity and institutional authority.“The existence of a grievance mechanism is meaningful only when a complainant has confidence that the complaint will be examined independently, fairly and within a defined framework, and that an adverse finding will have meaningful consequences,” she said.Legal experts also feel that the POSH Act and the GSICC operate in different institutional contexts. The POSH Act is a statutory framework specifically designed to address sexual harassment at workplace. It lays down a detailed procedure for receiving complaints, conducting an inquiry, protecting confidentiality, ensuring natural justice and making recommendations after a finding.The GSICC, on the other hand, is an institutional mechanism created within the judicial system, keeping in mind the unique constitutional and administrative structure of courts.Pavani said, “I disagree with the argument that both mechanisms are ineffective as neither prescribes a criminal punishment for the wrongdoer.”“The objective of a workplace sexual-harassment mechanism is not to function as a criminal court. Its purpose is to provide an independent fact-finding and redressal mechanism,” she added.Advocate Sumita Hazarika, who specialises in family and service law as well as the rights of the marginalised, said no space was sacrosanct for a woman to work.“The best example is the sexual harassment case filed by a junior court assistant against the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi. An in-house Supreme Court committee gave him a clean chit, though the handling of the case sparked widespread debate regarding the application and procedures of the POSH Act. Rather than utilising an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) mandated by the POSH Act, the court relied on an ad-hoc internal panel,” she said.“The complainant withdrew from the panel proceedings, stating she felt traumatised, lacked clarity on the procedure, and was not allowed a lawyer,” Hazarika said, adding that bringing the judiciary under the POSH framework may help such victims to open up and seek justice.However, advocate Shobha Gupta, who has fought many sexual assault cases, disagrees with the entire argument.She said, “I am not convinced by the practicality of the argument. GSICC is an able body to deal with the cases of misconduct. Besides, there are enough mechanisms to take the complaint forward if the victim is not satisfied with the panel’s decision.”“The POSH law will have to be effectively amended if courts are to implement it because ours is not a typical workplace. That means more committees need to be formed, and if a complaint is filed against the judges, procedures can get more complicated. Think about it from the perspective of the courts that are already overloaded with litigations. We can strengthen the existing framework rather than bringing new rules,” she added.Another member of the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association said: “The real test is not whether the mechanism was POSH or GSICC. The real test is whether a woman who faces sexual harassment feels safe enough to complain, approach the mechanism without fear of professional repercussions, and has the confidence that her complaint will be heard fairly.”