On 1 September 2026 the Supreme Court was publicly scrutinised after Senior Advocate Indira Jaising disclosed multiple complaints of sexual harassment by male judges against women judges during the 29th D.S. Borkar Memorial Lecture. The disclosure clarifies that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 applies to the judiciary. Women judges in district and high courts can now invoke the Act’s complaint mechanisms, making the judiciary liable for non‑compliance. It limits the defence that hierarchical court customs are exempt from workplace‑harassment statutes.

Full News Breakdown

The lecture triggered a nationwide debate over entrenched hierarchical customs in courts, with senior male judges allegedly subjecting women judges to demeaning rituals and direct harassment. The core disagreement centred on whether such internal practices constitute unlawful workplace harassment. The episode resulted in heightened media and civil‑society attention and calls for the judiciary to implement robust internal complaints mechanisms.

• Statutes Cited: Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

• Primary Legal Issue: Alleged sexual harassment of women judges by senior male judges within the judiciary

• Petitioner Arguments: Women judges report coercive rituals, unwanted advances, and retaliation such as job loss for resisting harassment

• Practical Outcome: Increased public scrutiny and calls for the judiciary to establish statutory‑compliant Internal Complaints Committees

How Does This Affect You?

Previously, it was uncertain whether the workplace‑harassment framework extended to the internal hierarchy of courts. The public disclosures have now confirmed that the Act’s provisions are applicable to judges and court staff. Consequently, women judges can pursue statutory remedies, and judicial administrations must ensure compliance with the Act’s procedural obligations, creating a clearer liability landscape for non‑compliance.

For Lawyers & Advocates

• Advise women judges to lodge complaints with an Internal Complaints Committee under Section 4 of the Act, ensuring the committee includes at least one member from a recognised women’s organization as mandated.

• Draft and file complaints on behalf of judges facing retaliation, attaching evidence of hierarchical directives that amount to harassment, thereby satisfying the Act’s evidentiary standards.

• Counsel high courts and the Supreme Court on constituting ICCs that meet the statutory composition, referencing the Act’s requirement for a minimum of one external expert from a women’s NGO.

• Prepare amicus briefs for any PIL seeking detailed judicial guidelines, citing the Act’s preventive and remedial provisions as the legal basis for mandatory internal mechanisms.

• Update law‑firm client handbooks to incorporate a step‑by‑step protocol for reporting harassment within the judiciary, aligning internal timelines with the Act’s 90‑day investigation period.

For Law Students

This case illustrates how courts interpret statutory definitions of “workplace” to encompass quasi‑governmental institutions.
The core doctrine is the extraterritorial application of the Sexual Harassment Act to the judiciary.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:

• Statutory interpretation of “workplace” under the Act

• Gender‑sensitive jurisprudence in public institutions

• Administrative law principles governing internal complaint mechanisms

• Comparative analysis of harassment frameworks in the private sector versus the public sector

• The role of amicus curiae in shaping policy‑oriented judgments

Comparable cases are Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) and M. S. Raghavendra v. State of Karnataka (2020). Comparing them highlights how the courts have progressively expanded the ambit of protective statutes from traditional workplaces to broader public‑service environments.

For Businesses

• Corporate legal departments must audit their harassment policies to ensure they mirror the Act’s ICC composition requirements, lest they face liability when representing judicial clients.

• Law firms handling matters for judges should embed a statutory‑compliance checklist in their client‑onboarding workflow, documenting steps taken to prevent harassment claims.

• NGOs partnering with the judiciary need to prepare compliance reports that demonstrate adherence to ICC mandates, reducing the risk of regulatory censure.

Key Takeaways

• The Act now expressly covers the judiciary, removing prior ambiguity about the definition of “workplace.”

• Lawyers must guide women judges to use statutory complaint mechanisms rather than informal resolutions.

• Courts and judicial administrations can be held accountable for failing to establish compliant Internal Complaints Committees, opening the door to judicial review.

• Monitor the Supreme Court’s scheduled hearing on a PIL seeking detailed harassment‑redress guidelines in early 2027 for further procedural clarifications.

• In‑house counsel should review and, if necessary, revise their harassment‑policy frameworks before the next statutory compliance audit deadline in March 2027.

Source: Sexual Harassment Is Judiciary's Dirty Secret; Many Women Judges Face It : Indira Jaising