Bar associations must provide accessible complaint mechanisms for sexual harassment of women advocates and interns.

The petition was registered on the basis of a representation dated 29 July 2026 submitted by the Secretary General of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association on behalf of the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association.

The representation alleged that an Advocate had been apprehended from his professional chamber by non-State actors, physically assaulted, and paraded from Keating Road, Shillong, to Sadar Police Station. It was alleged that the police failed to intervene or take prompt action against the persons involved.

During the proceedings, the State assured the Court that appropriate action would be taken, and an FIR was registered against the alleged assailants.

The Bar Council of Meghalaya also undertook measures concerning grievances of sexual harassment involving women Advocates and interns, including making drop-box facilities mandatory in Bar Associations and establishing a physical drop box and an online complaint portal.

Whether the State police were required to take prompt and effective action against non-State actors who allegedly assaulted and paraded an Advocate, in accordance with the safeguards laid down in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India.

Whether the Bar Council of Meghalaya and the Bar Associations were required to establish mechanisms for receiving and addressing complaints of sexual harassment involving women Advocates and interns.

Whether any further directions or relief were required after the registration of the FIR, commencement of investigation, and implementation of the institutional grievance mechanisms.

The Court relied principally on Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501, which requires State Governments to adopt preventive, remedial, and punitive measures against unlawful violence and vigilantism by non-State actors.

The judgment also proceeded on the principle that law-enforcement authorities must not permit private persons to take the law into their own hands and must promptly register and investigate cognizable offences.

In relation to professional misconduct and sexual-harassment complaints against an Advocate, the Court relied on the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council under the Bar Council of India Rules, together with the institutional responsibility of Bar Associations and the Bar Council of Meghalaya to provide accessible complaint mechanisms.

The Court treated the alleged assault and public parading of the Advocate as conduct by non-State actors that could not be countenanced under the principles in Tehseen S. Poonawalla.

The initial failure to register an FIR and intervene prompted the Court’s concern; however, during the proceedings, the State registered the FIR and assured the Court that the investigation would be pursued to its logical conclusion.

The Court further noted that the Bar Council and Bar Associations had acted on the institutional concerns raised by establishing physical and online complaint mechanisms, directing compliance across Bar Associations, and initiating disciplinary proceedings in the sexual-harassment complaint.

These steps substantially addressed both the immediate incident and the need for preventive mechanisms in future cases.

It also found that the Bar Council of Meghalaya had taken positive and adequate steps to address future grievances, including the establishment of drop-box and online complaint facilities and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings where required.

Since the FIR had been registered, investigation was underway, and the institutional mechanisms had been implemented, the Court held that nothing further survived for consideration and disposed of the petition accordingly.