The Women's Rights Initiative of the Lawyers Collective filed this Lawyers Collective amicus curiae petition before the Supreme Court of India demanding that each Supreme Court sexual harassment inquiry within the judiciary strictly adhere to Vishaka guidelines compliance in judiciary standards and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. Drafted by senior advocates Indira Jaising and Anand Grover following allegations by a former law intern, the 29-page brief urged the apex court to ensure independent inquiry committee composition with external representation and establish binding judicial clerkship sexual harassment regulations. The petition called on the court to facilitate confidential deposition before inquiry committee proceedings to protect vulnerable witnesses.
Core Demands of the Lawyers Collective Amicus Curiae Petition
The 29-page intervention filed before the Supreme Court arose following public allegations that a law intern was subjected to sexual harassment by a former Supreme Court judge during her internship. While the immediate trigger was a specific complaint, senior advocates Indira Jaising and Anand Grover emphasized that the court must address the systemic nature of workplace sexual harassment throughout the justice administration. The brief stated that the judicial hierarchy encompasses vulnerable participants, including law interns, judicial clerks, law students, junior advocates, and female litigants seeking justice.
The amicus brief urged the court not to treat the matter as an isolated disciplinary episode, but rather as an institutional opportunity to establish clear, transparent, and legally binding mechanisms across all levels of the judiciary. Annexed to the petition was a formal Resolution passed by the Women Lawyers of the Supreme Court Bar Association, signed by numerous practicing advocates endorsing structural reforms.
Institutional Compliance with the Vishaka Guidelines and POSH Act
The petition highlighted that the initial three-judge inquiry committee constituted by the Chief Justice of India did not conform to the binding standards articulated in the landmark 1997 decision in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan or the statutory mandate of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). Specifically, the brief identified critical structural deficiencies:
- Gender Composition: Under the Vishaka framework, women must constitute at least half of the inquiry committee, and the committee should ideally be headed by a woman. The three-judge committee had only one female member (Justice Ranjana Desai), failing to meet the required threshold.
- Independent External Representation: Vishaka rules explicitly require the presence of an independent third party, such as an NGO representative or external expert familiar with sexual harassment issues, to prevent institutional bias and ensure objective scrutiny. The petition strongly recommended adding an external expert member.
- Formulation of Binding Regulations: The brief prayed for clear, detailed guidelines to monitor and regulate court clerkships, judicial internships, and working conditions within the Supreme Court and subordinate courts.
Addressing Power Imbalances in Judicial Clerkships and Internships
A central legal contribution of the amicus brief was its detailed analysis of quid pro quo sexual harassment and institutional dominance within the legal profession. The petition argued that an enormous social, professional, and institutional gulf separates Supreme Court judges from young law students and interns:
"There can be no gainsaying that an enormous social and professional gulf separates Judges from the law students, clerks, and interns working in the institution of the Supreme Court. It is further trite that even after their retirement from this Hon'ble Court, Judges continue to exercise power over the professional lives of potential or existing law clerks and interns. In these circumstances, it is most respectfully submitted that incidents which occur subsequent to the conclusion of the official period of internship or clerkship and following the retirement of the Judge from the Bench, also fall within the protection of the law."
The petition cited international comparative jurisprudence, including Australian statutory definitions of "unwelcome conduct", where behavior is assessed by whether a reasonable person would anticipate that the victim would be offended, humiliated, or intimidated. This standard was also endorsed by the late Justice J.S. Verma Committee Report on criminal law amendments following the 2012 Delhi gang rape incident. The petition argued that a demonstrable relationship of dominance creates coercive pressure, preventing young interns from lodging immediate formal complaints.
Confidential Deposition Mechanisms and Witness Protection
To ensure that the inquiry committee could uncover the complete factual reality without exposing vulnerable individuals to professional retaliation or public exposure, the amicus brief requested specific procedural safeguards:
- Public Notice with Confidentiality: The Supreme Court should issue a formal notice inviting aggrieved persons to depose before the committee regarding the incident in question or similar occurrences, with an explicit guarantee that their identities will remain strictly confidential.
- Restraining Orders: The brief prayed for directions restraining the respondent judge from contacting, approaching, or communicating with the complainant intern or potential witnesses, ensuring that no obstruction occurs during the fact-finding process.
- Safe Working Environment: The apex court should establish a permanent, accessible internal complaints committee equipped with standard operating procedures for intern safety.
Constitutional and Administrative Law Foundations
The amicus brief anchored its submissions in the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. Freedom from sexual harassment and the right to work in a safe, non-discriminatory environment are foundational components of gender equality and personal liberty. Law students and legal scholars analyzing these constitutional protections can reference constitutional guarantees of equality and fundamental freedoms to examine how fundamental rights apply to institutional workplaces.
Furthermore, the establishment of unbiased inquiry bodies with clear jurisdictional rules aligns directly with the core principles of natural justice and fair institutional inquiry in administrative law. The Lawyers Collective brief stressed that adherence to fair procedure protects both the dignity of complainants and the integrity of the judicial office.
Institutional Significance for Judicial Accountability
The intervention by the Lawyers Collective marked a defining moment in the evolution of gender justice within the Indian judiciary. By demanding that the highest court in the country apply the exact standards it mandated for other public and private institutions, the amicus petition reinforced the principle that no institution is exempt from the rule of law. The recommendations contributed directly to the subsequent formulation of the Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC) regulations across Indian High Courts and the Supreme Court.