Political parties are not workplaces, the Supreme Court has determined, and so do not come under the protection of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, or to use its catchy acronym, POSH. To bring political parties under POSH would make it a “tool for blackmail”, India’s top court observed while dismissing a special leave petition.
The Supreme Court’s literal interpretation of a workplace ignores the reality of modern politics which, you could argue, for many is now a profession with the perks of power including free housing, medical benefits, and other allowances. Even if you go only by nomenclature, parties have offices, office-bearers and employees who are paid salaries. There is a hierarchy of subordinates and seniors. There is fund-collection, bank accounts and organised activity such as protests and rallies. “To not call them workplaces defies logic,” said senior advocate Shobha Gupta who appeared for the petitioner, MG Yogamaya in the Supreme Court.
Sexual harassment is rampant in political parties, said Yogamaya, an advocate and a member of the Congress legal cell who was appearing in her personal capacity. “Most cases go unreported due to fear of backlash and loss of opportunities,” she said. “The power imbalance and culture of silence worsen the problem.”
Research backs this claim. In 2014, UN Women and the Centre for Social Research (CSR) found 58% of women politicians surveyed said the perpetrators of violence against them were party colleagues. Apart from the everyday sexism that women in public life are subjected to, it is “well known that politicians ask for sexual favours,” said Ranjana Kumari, director, Centre for Social Research.
POSH was intended to be a generous law. It protects domestic workers employed in homes as well as women in the unorganised sector. It covers “aggrieved women” and not just employees. Its definition of sexual harassment is deliberately broad. It gives women the option of filing complaints within their work spaces, rather than taking recourse to criminal complaints. Of course, they can choose to do both. But the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is structured to give both sides a fair, and quick, hearing. Now, said Gupta, “You are consciously keeping out a very big and powerful sector of the workplace known as political party offices.”
The narrowing of a law intended to make workplaces safer and thereby, enable greater participation by women in public life is unfortunate. The use of words like blackmail reflects a growing judicial suspicion of women who assert their rights. In the recent past, women who have sought maintenance in divorce cases have been told to get a job. Rape survivors are counselled to tie rakhi or even marry their rapists. Section 498A that recognised violence by a husband and his relatives is now mired with judicial observations about disgruntled housewives.
Sexual harassment is the manifestation of an asymmetric hierarchy, where power lies in the hands of a few men over subordinate women (and men, though POSH is not gender neutral). The Supreme Court’s observation offers no solutions. It is time for political parties to pick up the slack and signal their good intentions. Of the 2,764 registered political parties, just one — the CPI (M) — has an ICC, the petition avers. Nothing stops the others from following suit.
Political parties must recognise how integral they are to nation-building. Women’s empowerment, a term so loved by all of them, goes beyond cash transfers and women-friendly schemes. It begins at home, at the party office where women workers can function with dignity, without fear in an environment free of sexual harassment.
Namita Bhandare writes on gender. The views expressed are personal
