Explained: How SC’s Yogamaya Ruling Hurts Women in Politics

In India, Legal, SCJudgments
October 11, 2025
Dinesh Singh Rawat
1187 Views
0 comments

The Supreme Court’s refusal in Yogamaya v. State of Kerala to extend POSH protections to political parties leaves women in Indian politics without recourse against harassment. Data reveal deep gender gaps, unsafe party structures, and a chilling effect that threatens to push women further away from active political participation and leadership.

New Delhi (ABC Live): The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the Special Leave Petition in Yogamaya v. State of Kerala (2025) has quietly dealt a blow to women’s participation in Indian politics.
By upholding the Kerala High Court’s view that political parties are not “workplaces” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Court left women political workers and volunteers outside any legal framework for protection against harassment.

This silence marks a retreat from Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997 6 SCC 241), where the Court declared that sexual harassment violates Articles 14, 19, and 21. In a political system already skewed against women, Yogamaya risks driving more women out of public life.

Facts of the Case

In 2022, the Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy (CCRRA) petitioned the Kerala High Court, demanding that all political parties establish Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) under the POSH Act.

The State of Kerala opposed the plea, claiming political parties are voluntary associations without an employer–employee relationship.

Kerala High Court’s Decision (2022 SCC OnLine Ker 2928)

Political parties are voluntary, not employers.
No remuneration, no employment nexus.
Extending POSH would “open a Pandora’s box” of politically motivated false complaints.
→ Read full judgment

Supreme Court’s Refusal (2025)

When Yogamaya, a party worker, appealed, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP at the admission stage, noting it involved “policy questions better addressed by the legislature.”
This refusal, though silent, effectively confirmed the exclusion of political parties from POSH.

Why It Matters

Political parties are the gateways to governance — yet remain unregulated by workplace-safety laws.
Out of six national parties, only CPI(M) has an ICC under Article XIX §3 of its party constitution (cpim.org/documents/party-constitution). Neither the BJP nor the Congress — which together account for over 80% of Parliament — has POSH-aligned mechanisms.

Party	Women MPs (2024)	% of Total MPs	ICC Under POSH?
BJP	42 / 303	13.8 %	❌ No
INC	14 / 52	26.9 %	❌ No
TMC	10 / 23	43 %	❌ No
CPI(M)	2 / 3	66 %	✅ Yes
Regional Avg.	~11 %	—	❌ No

India’s Lok Sabha (2024) has just 78 women MPs (14.4%), and State Assemblies average around 9%. By contrast, Panchayati Raj Institutions — where 46% of seats are reserved for women — show that legal mandates increase participation. The Yogamaya ruling instead removes an essential layer of legal security.

Judicial Reasoning and Its Flaws

1. “No Employer–Employee Relationship”

POSH Section 2(f) protects women “whether employed or not, working voluntarily or otherwise,” while Section 2(o)(ii) defines workplace expansively.

Precedents such as Jaya Kodate v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (2014 SCC OnLine Bom 814) and Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. CAG (2008 SCC OnLine Del 992) interpret “employer” functionally, not formally.

Political parties maintain offices, hierarchies, and administrative control — characteristics of a workplace. Ignoring this functional definition defeats POSH’s purpose.

2. “Fear of Misuse”

Section 14 of POSH already penalises false complaints.
Dismissing women’s rights based on speculative misuse converts patriarchal suspicion into legal principle — an inversion of constitutional morality.

How the Supreme Court Failed Vishaka

In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court held that sexual harassment violates fundamental rights and issued binding guidelines. It acted where Parliament had been silent.

In Yogamaya, the Court did the opposite — it remained silent despite constitutional violation, ignoring its own precedent in Vishaka and Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India (2020 13 SCC 56).

This shift from judicial creativity to judicial caution marks a regression from rights expansion to rights withdrawal.

Data Evidence: Harassment in Politics and Workplaces

A. Violence Against Women in Politics (Asia-Pacific Region)

76 % of women MPs report psychological violence.
25 % face sexual harassment.
13 % suffer physical assault.
(Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2025) → IPU Report

Even formal parliaments are unsafe; party offices without ICCs are far worse.

B. Workplace Harassment Trends in India Inc

Year	Complaints	Source
2013–14	161	CEDA Ashoka University
2022–23	1,160	ibid. / ET HR News 2024

Complaints rose over 600% in a decade — a sign of increasing institutional trust, not misuse.

C. Harassment Within Indian Politics

A Newslaundry survey (2025) found that:

50 % of women political workers faced verbal abuse.
45 % faced physical threats.
58 % identified perpetrators from within their own party.
→ Newslaundry Report

Harassment in politics is not occasional — it is systemic and internal.

D. Crime and Safety Indicators

151 MPs/MLAs have declared offences against women. (ADR, 2024)
440+ workplace harassment cases annually (2018–22) — Business Standard, 2024
NCW complaints increased from 539 (2016) → 965 (2018). (PIB, 2019)

Rising reporting reflects trust in law. Yogamaya removes that trust from political spaces.

Impact: How the Ruling Will Discourage Women in Politics

1. Reinforcing the “Boys’ Club” Culture

Indian politics has long operated as a closed male network, where access to power flows through patronage, not merit.
By excluding political parties from POSH, the Court has legitimised the absence of accountability inside this power structure.

Without ICCs, harassment complaints will remain “internal matters,” decided by the same male leaders accused of misconduct. This breeds silence over justice and deters women from participation at every level.

2. Chilling Effect on Aspiring Women Leaders

A UN Women India survey (2023) revealed that 61% of young women interested in politics feared harassment or reputational harm as the main deterrent.
With Yogamaya, that fear is now justified.

“Politics tells women: You may serve, but you cannot seek justice.”

A woman facing harassment by a senior party leader now has no ICC, no confidentiality, and no safe recourse. Reporting externally risks expulsion or public vilification.
The consequence: many women will never join, or will exit early — shrinking the pool of future female leaders.

3. Weakening the Political Pipeline

Grassroots party offices are the nursery of leadership.
A 2024 ISST study found that 42% of women who left political work cited “unsafe environment and verbal harassment” as the main reason. (ISST Working Paper, 2024)

Without legal protections, parties lose competent female organisers and campaigners before they reach decision-making levels — entrenching male dominance and stalling India’s gender-equality trajectory.

4. Normalising Impunity and Retaliation

In politics, power protects itself.
Women who complain are often punished — denied tickets, labelled “anti-party,” or sidelined from committees.
The Yogamaya judgment, by insulating parties from POSH, formally legitimises this cycle of retaliation.

ADR’s 2024 analysis showed that 151 elected representatives had declared crimes against women, yet few faced internal disciplinary action.
Without ICCs, no complaint records exist, allowing parties to maintain a false image of gender sensitivity.

5. Undermining India’s Democratic Legitimacy

Democracy is meaningful only when participation is equal. Excluding women from safe political spaces violates Articles 14 and 21 and India’s CEDAW obligations (Art. 7).
The Vishaka judgment once invoked CEDAW to justify judicial activism. Yogamaya ignored it — retreating from global gender norms and moral leadership.

A democracy that cannot protect women within its own parties cannot claim to protect them within the State.

6. Psychological and Symbolic Fallout

When the highest court steps back, women perceive it as a withdrawal of recognition.
This deepens what feminist scholars term “adaptive preferences” — where women normalise discrimination as part of professional life.

“Justice is replaced by adjustment.”

The Yogamaya refusal thus weakens not just legal protection but also the collective confidence of women to demand accountability.

7. Long-Term Political Consequences

If the status quo persists:

Women’s representation will plateau below 20% even after constitutional reservation.
Political institutions will lose legitimacy among women voters.
Gender gaps will widen across campaign financing, ticket distribution, and leadership.

This decision could therefore freeze India’s gender progress for a decade, creating a democracy where women can vote but cannot safely participate.

8. Why It Matters Beyond Gender

The issue transcends feminism — it concerns the moral architecture of democracy.
A political system that cannot guarantee safety within its own organisations cannot credibly promise justice in governance.
The Yogamaya ruling thus marks not only a setback for women but also a test of India’s constitutional conscience.

Comparative Models

Country	Legal Framework	Scope
UK	Equality Act 2010 + Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy (2017)	Covers MPs, party staff, and aides
Kenya	Political Parties Disputes Tribunal Act (2011)	Adjudicates intra-party harassment
Bolivia	Law 243 (2012)	Criminalises political harassment
Sweden/Norway	Gender Equality Ombudsman	Monitors all organisations including parties

Comparative evidence shows that accountable politics strengthens democracy, not weakens it.

The Way Forward

Judicial Guidelines: The Supreme Court must revive Vishaka-style guidelines requiring every registered party (§ 29A RPA) to set up ICCs.
Election Commission Oversight: Party recognition should depend on ICC certification.
Legislative Amendment: Parliament should amend POSH § 2(o) to include “political parties and their offices.”
Annual Gender Audits: Mandate publication of complaint statistics and outcomes.
Training: Compulsory gender-sensitisation modules for all cadres and leaders.

Conclusion

The Yogamaya refusal transforms judicial restraint into constitutional regression.
By withdrawing POSH protection from political parties, the Court has effectively told women: Your safety depends not on law, but on luck.

Data confirms that harassment in politics is pervasive and structural impunity. The judgment discourages women from joining public life, weakens institutional integrity, and betrays the Vishaka legacy of judicial courage.

If Vishaka lit the torch of dignity, Yogamaya dims it — leaving Indian democracy poorer, quieter, and less equal.