The register of empanelment: advocates empanelled as POSH external members.
A register of what we can publish without putting a practitioner's licence in question — every enrolment on it real, none of it identifying anyone, and the one entry that decides anything, the advocate proposed for your own committee, named to you in full before you appoint them.
A register, not a team page. No photographs, no biographies, no personal brands — an empanelment list adds and removes members without a story to rewrite. It carries no names and no enrolment numbers either, and that is deliberate: Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules restricts an advocate from advertising or soliciting work, and the advocates on our panel do not advertise. That is rather the point of us. What remains below is every other column — the council, the year, the languages, the districts — each of it real, none of it identifying anybody.
The year of enrolment is published with them, and it is what this register offers against the obvious question a 2026 founding date raises. The firm is new. The practice behind it is not. Subtract the year from the current one and you have each advocate's years at the bar — a figure we cannot inflate, because the State Bar Council roll carries the same one. Enrolments on this register run from 2005 to 2018 — close to a decade at the bar for the most recently enrolled, more than two decades for the longest-serving. Years at the bar are not, on their own, what s.4(2)(c) asks of an external member: that is familiarity with the issues relating to sexual harassment, and the Delhi High Court has held that the Rules' wider "labour, service, civil or criminal law" description applies only to Local Committees. So when an advocate is proposed for your committee, ask about their sexual harassment casework as well as checking the name and enrolment number before you appoint.
Independence you can see.
Advocates who sit as external members, and advocates who advise employers on live complaints, are kept on two separate rosters. No individual appears on both — the divider is the whole point.
- Every row of all three rosters, in full but for the two identifying columns: State Bar Council, year of enrolment, languages, the districts each advocate can sit in, and for case counsel the forum they practise before and their practice areas.
- The size and shape of each roster — how many advocates sit as external members, how many act as case counsel, and the fact that no individual appears on both.
- The full name and enrolment number of the advocate proposed for your own Internal Committee — sent before you appoint anyone, not after.
- Two columns, and only two: advocates' names and enrolment numbers, and the trainers' names and roll numbers.
- Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules restricts an advocate from advertising or soliciting work. The advocates on our panel do not advertise — that is rather the point of us — and we are not going to put a practitioner's licence in question to decorate a page.
- Every one of them is sent in full on request, with the issuing body's own verification steps, and always for whoever is proposed for your committee. Held back here means handed to you before you appoint, not withheld.
- India maintains no statutory register of social workers — no licensing body, no roll, no enrolment number, no year of admission.
- A claim of years in social work is a statement a person makes about themselves. There is no record anywhere against which you can test it, before the appointment or after.
- If that member conducts themselves badly during an inquiry, there is no professional body with jurisdiction to hear your complaint about it.
- An advocate's enrolment sits on a State Bar Council roll we neither control nor can edit. The council, the number and the year are permanent and public.
- You check it yourself, against that roll, before the constitution order is signed — not after, and not on our say-so.
- And there is a disciplinary jurisdiction behind it: Advocates Act 1961, s.35, with the power to suspend or strike off.
- Enrolment settles who the advocate is. Whether they know sexual harassment matters — what s.4(2)(c) actually asks — is a separate question, and one to put to any candidate before appointment.
Both routes are lawful, and s.4(2)(c) does not prefer either. Only one of them can be checked. The masking on this page is not what stands between you and that check — nothing here is the last word on who sits on your committee. The full name and enrolment number of the advocate proposed for your Internal Committee reach you before you appoint anyone, and you verify them against a public roll at the only moment verification changes a decision.
The rule that keeps a name off this page is the same rule that makes the man accountable to somebody. There is no Rule 36 for a social worker, because there is no body to have made one.
Advocates empanelled as external members
Seated as the s.4(2)(c) external member on client Internal Committees. Every name here is written into a client's constitution order and captured in their SHe-Box record — which is precisely why withholding it would protect nothing.
| Seat | State Bar Council | Enrolled | Languages | Districts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-1 | Bar Council of Delhi | 2012 | Hindi, English | Delhi NCT — District Courts |
| A-2 | Bar Council of Delhi | 2018 | Hindi, English | Delhi NCT — District Courts |
| A-3 | Bar Council of Delhi | 2018 | Hindi, English, Punjabi | Delhi NCT — District Courts |
| A-4 | Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa | 2015 | Marathi, Hindi, English | Mumbai |
| A-5 | Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa | 2017 | Marathi, Hindi, English | Mumbai |
SEAT NUMBERS ARE OURS, NOT THE COUNCIL'S — A ROW REFERENCE, NOT AN IDENTIFIER. NAMES AND ENROLMENT NUMBERS ARE NOT PUBLISHED AT ALL, FOLLOWING THE ADVOCATES' OWN CONDUCT RULES ON ADVERTISING — BCI RULES, RULE 36. THE NAME AND ENROLMENT NUMBER OF THE ADVOCATE PROPOSED FOR YOUR COMMITTEE — MATCHABLE AGAINST THE STATE BAR COUNCIL ROLL — REACH YOU BEFORE YOU APPOINT THEM.
No advocate on Roster A appears on Roster B. The external member exists to inject independence into a quasi-judicial inquiry; case counsel argues the employer's side of a live complaint. One person cannot honestly do both — so we never ask, and we enforce the separation as a firm policy: no advocate appears on both rosters.
Case counsel — never seated on a client committee
Advocates arranged for employers when a complaint is received. None is empanelled as an external member on any Internal Committee, for any client.
| Seat | State Bar Council | Enrolled | Practises before | Practice areas | Languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B-1 | Bar Council of Delhi | 2005 | District Courts, Delhi | Criminal law | Hindi, English |
| B-2 | Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa | 2018 | Bombay High Court | Family law | Marathi, Hindi, English |
NAMES AND ENROLMENT NUMBERS ARE NOT PUBLISHED, FOLLOWING THE ADVOCATES' OWN CONDUCT RULES ON ADVERTISING — BCI RULES, RULE 36. ANY FULL NAME AND ENROLMENT NUMBER — MATCHABLE AGAINST THE STATE BAR COUNCIL ROLL — IS SENT ON REQUEST, WITHIN ONE WORKING DAY.
Certified trainers
No government or statutory body certifies POSH trainers in India; every such certificate is private. Ours is the NIST certification (National Institute of Skills Training) — a private mark, not one of the government's National Skill Training Institutes.
| Seat | Awarding body | Certification | Issued | Languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-1 | NIST | NIST certification | 2025 | Hindi, English, Bengali |
| C-2 | NIST | NIST certification | 2022 | Hindi, English |
| C-3 | NIST | NIST certification | 2025 | Hindi, English, Punjabi |
NAMES AND ROLL NUMBERS ARE NOT PUBLISHED. THE FULL NAME AND ROLL NUMBER — MATCHABLE AGAINST NIST'S OWN VERIFICATION STEPS — ARE SENT ON REQUEST, WITHIN ONE WORKING DAY.
On experience, plainly. Our trainers came to POSH work after ten to twelve years each in HR, learning and development, and workplace facilitation, and have delivered POSH and workplace training since 2024. Unlike an advocate's enrolment year in the tables above, that is not a figure you can check: NIST certifies that a trainer passed its assessment, not what they did in the decade before it, and no awarding body in India certifies the latter for anyone. We state it because it is true and it is relevant. We flag it because it is ours to state, not yours to verify — and on this page that distinction is the whole point.
Check any credential before you commit.
We send the enrolment roll number and the awarding body's verification procedure within one working day. Anyone who takes the trouble to verify is close to deciding — so we treat it as a front door, not fine print.
Once an empanelled advocate is seated on a client's Internal Committee, that appointment is recorded on the Ministry of Women & Child Development's SHe-Box portal. With client permission, those public records will appear in this slot — third-party proof of work delivered, not a certificate we printed ourselves.
Where to go next
Section 4(2)(c) does not require an NGO — but it does require familiarity with sexual harassment matters.
Why every POSH trainer certificate is private, and what to check before booking one.
Check this against the record
Everything on this page rests on the statute, the Rules, or a reported judgment. These are the originals — links open on the issuing body's own site.
The statutory body under the Advocates Act 1961 whose rules restrict an advocate from advertising or soliciting work — the constraint that keeps most of our register masked. Linked at its root: the council's own deep links to the rules do not currently resolve.
Rule 36 reproduced in full — "An Advocate shall not solicit works or advertise, either directly or indirectly" — published by the Bar Council of Kerala, a State Bar Council constituted under the same Act.
The High Court on advocates listed and advertised through third-party service platforms — the conduct question a public panel of names raises, decided 3 July 2024.
The Government of India repository carrying the bare text of the POSH Act 2013 and its Rules.