Exclusion of women political workers from POSH Act: Supreme Court allows Yogamaya to withdraw petition
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai said the petitioner could take other necessary steps in accordance with the law.
The petition contends that there is no rational or intelligible differentia to exclude women in politics from protections available to women in other professions.
The plea, represented by senior advocate Shobha Gupta, said the definitions of 'workplace' and 'employer' under the 2013 Act must be expanded to include the political spectrum.
'Despite the Act's progressive intent, women political workers, particularly at the grassroots, remain vulnerable to sexual exploitation during campaigns and party work, with no effective legal remedy under the existing legislative framework,' it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
NEET UG 2025: SC Declines To Consider Plea Alleging Errors In Question Paper
Last Updated: NEET-UG 2025: The petitioner's counsel argued that the three questions were incorrect, citing two expert opinions that supported this claim. On Friday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a plea asserting that there were 'serious errors" in three questions from the NEET-UG 2025 examination. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar advised the petitioner's counsel to approach the relevant high court. The National Testing Agency conducts the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-Undergraduate (NEET-UG) for admissions to MBBS, BDS, AYUSH, and other related courses in both government and private institutions nationwide. The petitioner's counsel argued that the three questions were incorrect, citing two expert opinions that supported this claim. He stated that these questions affected the petitioner's score by 13 marks. 'These (three) questions were absolutely wrong. I have taken two expert opinions and those experts also concur with my views. They have certified my views," the counsel of the petitioner argued. The bench noted that the exam had already concluded. 'You withdraw this and go to the high court," the bench suggested, emphasising not wanting to deny the petitioner any remedy. The counsel requested that the Supreme Court appoint a panel of experts to review the questions within three days and consider their opinions. After the bench expressed unwillingness to entertain the plea, the petitioner's counsel decided to withdraw it. On July 4, the Supreme Court also declined to entertain a separate petition challenging the NEET-UG 2025 results due to an alleged error in one of the questions. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Rahul Gandhi Says Govt Sent Arun Jaitley To 'Threaten' Him In 2020, But BJP Leader Died In 2019
Arun Jaitley passed away in August 2019, but Rahul Gandhi has attacked him, stating that the government sent him in 2020 to "threaten" him over farm laws. In a bizarre attack on BJP leader Arun Jaitley, who died in August 2019, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said on Saturday that the government sent the veteran politician to threaten him to stop opposing the farm laws. Notably, the three farm laws in question were brought in by the Centre in June 2020 as an ordinance, nearly a year after Jaitley's demise at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi after a prolonged illness. The government had introduced the farm laws in June 2020 as ordinances and later passed them in Parliament in September 2020. Shooting on the shoulders of Jaitley, Rahul attacked the Centre for his opposition to the farm laws. Addressing the Annual Legal Conclave- 2025 in the national capital, Rahul described the alleged conversation with Jaitley and said, 'I remember when I was fighting the farm laws, Arun Jaitley ji was sent to me to threaten me. He told me 'if you carry on opposing the govt, fighting the farm laws, we will have to act against you". I looked at him and said 'I don't think you have an idea who you are talking to"." The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, and The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020, were repealed in November 2021 after massive protests by some farmers on the borders of the national capital. Arun Jaitley was a prominent member of Modi 1.0, during which he held key positions such as Defence Minister (from 26 May 2014 to 9 November 2014 and 13 March 2017 to 3 September 2017) and Finance Minister (2014 to 2019). He was the Leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha from 2009 to 2014 and Leader of the House in Rajya Sabha from 2014 to 2019. He was also the Minister for Commerce and Industry and Law and Justice during the Vajpayee government. During the Modi government, he was a part of major economic reforms, such as the implementation of Goods and Services Tax (GST), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and Banking sector reforms. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
NHRC seeks action taken report on caste-derogatory village, locality names across India
In a significant move aimed at upholding constitutional values of equality and dignity, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has issued notices to the Department of Posts and the Principal Secretaries of Urban Development and Panchayati Raj Departments across all States and Union Territories, calling for a detailed Action Taken Report (ATR) regarding the continued use of caste-indicative and derogatory names for villages, localities, settlements, and streets across the country. The matter was brought before the NHRC through a complaint dated July 10, 2025, and considered by the Commission on July 28. The complainant had raised serious concerns about the persistence of offensive nomenclature that reflects caste-based discrimination. The Commission noted that such names violate the constitutional ideals of equality and human dignity, and contribute to the continued social stigma faced by the Scheduled Castes, even after over 7 decades of Independence. Taking cognisance under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, a Bench presided over by NHRC Member Priyank Kanoongo directed the issuance of a formal notice. The Commission emphasised that the NHRC is empowered under the Act to investigate such matters with the authority of a civil court. The NHRC stated: 'The complainant has urged that such names be reviewed and renamed, as they are offensive and contrary to the constitutional ideals of equality and human dignity.' The Commission also cited several key legal and administrative references to support its directive. These include a 1990 circular from the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment instructing all governments to discontinue the use of the word 'Harijan', and a 1982 Ministry of Home Affairs directive banning the use of both 'Harijan' and 'Girijan.' States like Odisha, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Delhi, Punjab, and Kerala have already taken steps to enforce constitutionally-appropriate terminology. Further, the NHRC highlighted the Supreme Court's 2017 ruling in Manju Devi vs. Onkarjit Singh Ahluwalia & Others, which observed that caste-referential terms such as 'Harijan' and 'Dhobi' could constitute social insult or abuse. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly Section 3(1)(u), also criminalises the use of caste-based slurs, naming terms like 'Chamar', 'Bhangi', and 'Mehtar' as punishable offenses. The Commission also referenced a 2024 Supreme Court order in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) directing the government to consider removing casteist terms such as 'Chamar', 'Kanjar', 'Chuhra', and 'Bhangi' from official records. In its directive, the NHRC has asked all concerned authorities to compile and submit a list of towns, villages, panchayats, and other public spaces that still carry caste-indicative or derogatory names. It has also requested a report on the measures being taken to rename or remove such terms. The deadline for submission is four weeks from the date of notice. The Commission aims to address systemic discrimination embedded in geographical and administrative nomenclature, and to ensure that public spaces reflect the values enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
