SC Notices Centre, BCI on Plea to Implement POSH Act for Women Lawyers
New Delhi: On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to make an objection to the implementation of the sexual harassment of women in the law (Posh) (POSH) (POSH) law for women lawyers registered with the State Bar Association Councils or Bar Associations Association.
Nagarathna BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan notified India’s Central and Bar Association Council.
During the hearing, the bench asked how the Court could be opened against the Supreme Court decision in accordance with Article 32 of the Constitution (the right to the court for the protection of fundamental rights).
On July 7, the Supreme Court of Bombay regulated a luxury law implemented in a employer-employer relationship, so female lawyers did not make her claim.
The lawyer of the petition then agreed to delete prayer to put aside the Supreme Court decision.
The upper court felt a defense opened by the lawyer and writer Seema Joshi, who was looking for instructions to apply and implement women’s sexual harassment (prevention, prohibition, prohibition and correction) to women defenders registered in State Bar Councils/Bar Associations.
The defense, which was opened through lawyers Ritika Vohra and Naman Joshi, sought instructions to create/continue internal committees in accordance with the Luxury Law to hear the complaints of women defenders.
The petition said that the POSH law law lawyers in India are facing an irregular protection risk between the states that are contrary to the task of the statute, as there is no clear precedent to the applicability of the state barrel councils or bar associations.
He continued: “Sexual harassment itself, a woman’s foreword, in accordance with Articles 14 and 15, in accordance with Article 21 in accordance with the life and dignity and 19 (1) (g) in accordance with the freedom of implementing any profession, sexual harassment of the right to violate the right to violate the right of a safe environment.”
“The object and design of the statute is to influence these rights, and any interpretation that except for the protection of women’s advocates is contrary to the constitutional purpose that the law is trying to fulfill.”
