Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
On May 13, Shyamili Justin, an advocate working at the District Court in Kerala’s Thiruvananthapuram, appeared before the media with deep red bruises all over her left cheek. "My senior advocate, Beyline Das, beat me up over an office dispute. He dragged me to his side and hit me, and when I fell down, he hit me again," Shyamili said.
She had just resumed work, six months after giving birth. She told the media that the assault left her dizzy, with her memory blacking out, making her wonder whether she was beaten up a third time– Beyline had assaulted her earlier, when she was five months pregnant.
Though Shyamili was able to speak about the assault before the media, she had limited options to make a complaint about the severe workplace harassment she went through, despite her employer allegedly being a repeat offender. Her case has brought to light a crucial gap that prevents several lawyers like her from reporting their abusive employers– the lack of Internal Committees (ICs) in courts.
While the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, (PoSH) mandates the constitution of ICs to investigate and address sexual harassment complaints at all workplaces, they are almost non-existent in the legal profession. This allows senior lawyers to manipulate juniors into subjugation and exploitation in the course of their work.
Though Shyamili does not allege sexual harassment, senior lawyers TNM spoke to say that the gender power difference between Shyamili and Beyline brings it under the purview of the PoSH Act. Beyline was arrested on May 16 and charged under Sections 74 (using criminal force against a woman with the intention to outrage her modesty), 126 (2) (wrongful restraint) and 115 (2) (causing hurt) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
In January last year, S Aneeshya, an Assistant Public Prosecutor at the Munsiff and Magistrate Court in Kollam’s Paravur, died by suicide, triggering discussions on workplace harassment in the legal profession. Before taking the extreme step, Aneeshya had left voice messages and notes alleging mental harassment from her colleagues.
Though courts in Kerala have ICs under the PoSH Act, they are only meant for the administrative staff. Despite the judiciary delivering umpteen judgements on the effective implementation of the PoSH Act in workplaces across the country, women lawyers still remain out of its bounds.
Systemic harassment, no complaint mechanism
As per Shyamili’s complaint, Beyline hit her multiple times on the face after she demanded action against her colleague over an office dispute. Though the Thiruvananthapuram Bar Association suspended him and offered support to Shyamili, she later told the media that the Association opposed Beyline’s arrest from his office.
Shyamili also alleged that she faced targeted character assassination and humiliation from a section of lawyers who supported Beyline.
"This wouldn't have happened if the junior lawyer were a man. The issue came out because the brutal assault happened in a public space, and the woman had serious injuries to her face. The audacity of the lawyer to hit her shows the vulnerability of the woman and the gender power dynamics in the system," said senior lawyer and rights activist Sandhya Raju.
Sandhya added that in such cases, the gender angle is grossly ignored if there is no allegation of sexual assault. She noted that in any form of harassment, especially at the workplace, gender is always a factor that makes women vulnerable to violence.
"An intense patriarchal stronghold still exists in this profession. This is a very closed community, which is deepened by subjectivity in hiring juniors. Of course, appointments are made based on expertise, the number of cases appeared, etc., but deep-rooted biases come in the way of women. Many women only get to appear for adjournments. For other important case milestones, male advocates are sent by the senior,” Sandhya explained.
She also said that it was only in the late 2000s that two women got the designation of senior lawyers at the Kerala High Court– Advocates VP Seemanthini and Sumathi Dandapani– after almost 40 years of legal practice.
Noting that the presence of more women in the profession has slightly moved the needle, Sandhya observed that things are still difficult. “Male lawyers offer protection to other men. No one wants outspoken women in their profession. It is especially difficult when recommendations are needed to get into positions like Government Pleader or a judge. Women lawyers struggle to demand ICs in their own workspace, though they fight for the rights of others,” she said.
During a media discussion on the arrest of Beyline, senior advocate TB Mini said that she was aware of sexual harassment of junior advocates by seniors, and the lack of ICs in Bar Associations complicates the problem.
No ICs despite SC directions
The Supreme Court, in May 2023, issued directions to professionals, including lawyers, to ensure that ICs are constituted at the apex and state levels of their statutory bodies. A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli J said that there are “serious lapses in the enforcement of the Act even after such a long passage of time”.
Lawyers TNM spoke to said that the implementation of the PoSH Act has been delayed on the technical premise that the courts or bar associations do not qualify as an ‘employer’ according to the Act.
The Act defines an employer as any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the workplace, and management includes the person or board or committee responsible for formulation and administration of polices for such organisation. The employer must initiate disciplinary action against the officer involved in sexual harassment and ensure that the inquiry is fair and reasonable.
What the SC itself now has in place is a Gender Sensitisation and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC), as per a regulation introduced in 2013, to address issues of sexual and gender harassment at the precincts of the apex court.
The GSICC is different from an IC, and in the case of courts, a GSICC is recommended because courts and lawyers do not come under the purview of the PoSH Act.
"The GSICC was constituted as courts and lawyers do not come under the employer-employee relationship mentioned in the PoSH Act. However, the GSICC is capable of addressing issues like those faced by Shyamil, which do not come under sexual harassment," said a lawyer from Kerala to TNM.
The SC also directed all High Courts in all states and Union Territories to constitute similar GSICCs. Some months ago, the Centre for Constitutional Rights, Research, and Advocacy (CCRRA), headed by Sandhya Raju, sent a letter to the then acting Chief Justice Mohammed Mushtaque, requesting a GSICC.
"Several states, including Meghalaya and Tamil Nadu, along with the Union Territories of Puducherry and New Delhi, have already formulated such regulations and established GSICCs in both high courts and district courts," the letter stated.
The Kerala High Court Advocates Association constituted an IC in January this year, more than 12 years after the PoSH Act came into effect. In the statement announcing the formation of the IC, the Association said that it was constituted considering the safety of its lady members, though there was no statutory requirement, as the Association was not an ‘employer’.
Interestingly, not a single Bar Association in the state has an IC under it.
However, the Supreme Court has been specifically asking lawyers to address the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace even before the introduction of the PoSH Act.
In the Medha Kotwal Lele vs Union of India case of 2012, the apex court had asked Bar Associations in the country to follow the Vishakha guidelines– a set of procedural guidelines for dealing with complaints of sexual harassment, laid down by the Supreme Court in 1997, which set the foundation for the introduction of the PoSH Act in 2013.
Senior lawyer Sandhya Janardhanan pointed out that the Supreme Court specifically highlighted the lack of a complaint mechanism for sexual harassment in Bar Associations in the Medha Kotwal judgement. She noted that despite the case preceding the PoSH Act, no action was taken.
Admitting that there has been a long delay in the constitution of ICs for women lawyers, Kerala Federation of Women Lawyers’ (KFWL) president PK Santhamma said that a detailed draft was prepared by various stakeholders, including representatives of the Kerala High Court, the Advocate General’s office, and others, almost four months ago. “A decision will be taken after a review of the draft by a committee of judges of the Kerala High Court,” she said.
Santhamma added that, meanwhile, a victim rights centre, which began functioning under the KFWL in 2021, has been acting as a forum to accept grievances from victims of workplace harassment, including women lawyers. “Now, the Kerala State Legal Services Authority has taken over the victim rights centre,” she said.
Local committees constituted by district authorities under the PoSH Act, aimed at organisations with less than ten employees or for complaints against employers, are the other option available for women lawyers to register their complaints.