Authored By: Sam S Siryon
Apeejay Stya University-Gurgaon
Case Name: Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/0782/1997[1]
Decided: August 13, 1997
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: MANU/0782/SCC/1997
Bench: Hon’ble Chief Justice J.S Verma, Justice Sujata V. Manohar and Justice B.N Kirpal
Parties: Vishaka & Ors. (Petitioners) v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Respondents)
Introduction:
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme court addressed the issue of discrimination and violence against women especially at workplace. This is a landmark judgement wherein the court established guidelines to protect women from sexual harassment in their workplace. This decision of the court, after noticing a legislative loop, created a set of rules which remained binding until a formal legislation was passed, this rule aimed at protecting women from sexual harassment, violence and discrimination at workplace also known as the ‘Vishaka Guidelines’ was the antecedent to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) POSH Act, 2013[2].
Background and facts of the Case:
This case involve a by the name Bhanwari Devi who was a social worker of the Women’s Development Program – an Organization run by the Government of Rajasthan, engaged in preventing child marriages and women advocacies. In the course of her duties, while campaigning against child marriages, she attempted to stop the marriage of an Infant girl from the upper-caste by involving the officials, she and her husband was attacked by men of the higher caste in retaliation for humiliation they perceived to have faced as a result of Bhanwari’s open campaign against their marriage ceremony. Although the villagers had boycotted Bhanwari’s campaign and proceeded with the marriage after she left, the two; Bhanwari and her Husband was attacked by five-six men in response to her campaign which had caused public humiliation, and during the attack they gangrape her right before the eyes of her husband.
An official complaint was thereafter filed against the perpetrators but they were all acquitted by the Trial Court and her situation was dismissed by everyone including the villagers, doctors etc.[3]
This dismissal and acquittal exposed the systemic failure in Justice System and led to several NGOs filing of Public Interest Litigation at the level of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under the banner as ‘Vishaka’. Their petition highlighted the lack of a specific legislation to address the issue of workplace sexual harassment as it sought the enforcement of women’s fundamental rights.
Issues Raised:
- Whether the decision of the Trial court was violative of Bhanwari Devi’s fundamental rights as enshrined under the constitutional provisions of Article 14, 15, 19(1g) and 21?
- Whether there is a need for a set guideline to address the issue of sexual harassment of women at workplace?
Laws under question:
Article 14(right to equality), 15(freedom from discrimination), 19(1g) and 21- right to life and personal liberty as provided under the Constitution of India.
Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
The court examined the provisions of the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination, 1979
Petitioners’ arguments: (“Vishaka”)
The NGOs and some social justice activists collectively filed a writ of Mandamus for the enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Their petition sought to realize the true concept of ‘gender equality’ and to ensure the safety of women from sexual harassment at workplace, by filing this petition, they created an alternative mechanism to safeguard women in the absence of a documented legislation.
The petitioners argued that the sexual harassment at workplace violated working women’s fundamental rights under the constitutional provisions of Article 14(equality), 15 (right against discrimination), 19.1.g (freedom of profession) and 21(right to life and personal liberty)[4]. Thereby, invoking international laws like the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women- CEDAW 1979[5], this was in response to their argument that India had all a legal and moral imperative to protect these rights even in the absence of a set legislation.
In furtherance to their arguments, they requested the hon’ble Supreme Court to frame guidelines binding with the aim of preventing sexual harassment and fill the legislative looping. They further argued that inasmuch as India has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women CEDAW, this creates a binding obligation on India to align its domestic laws, principles and practices with the International Standards enshrined in the CEDAW even in the absence of a Domestic legislation.
The petitioners maintained that employers have the responsibility to ensure a safe working environment free from harassment and discrimination for all employees. They highlighted the Supreme Court’s constitutional duty to protect fundamental rights and asserted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its capacity could frame guidelines with the force of law to until the Parliament pass a suitable statue.
Respondents: (State of Rajasthan and Ors.)
On the contrary to counterclaiming the Petitioners, the Respondents maintained that the petitioners request for a guideline to prevent sexual harassment was in fact a valid point and they further assured the Court of their commitment to ensure gender equality. The respondents did highlight the issue of Judicial overreach in the Legislative powers and maintained that framing of new laws was primarily a legislative function and the Court would not want to proceed to perform a legislative duty.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court Ruling:
In its 1997 ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court took a groundbreaking step in interpreting the Indian Constitution and created a legal framework in the absence of a given legislative statute. The Hon’ble Court asserted its given powers under the provisions of Article 32 to provide constitutional remedy, and the court further stated that the absence of a specific law did not however prevent it from addressing a violation of fundamental rights.
While taking cognizance of sexual harassment at workplace, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it was violative of women’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring to the International Convention (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women CEDAW) 1979, to which India had ratified and created a guideline with the aim of preventing, prohibiting and addressing sexual harassment and violence against women at workplace.
In this guideline, the court defined what is sexual harassment and set specific guidelines for employers to follow by mandating that all workplaces should henceforth, establish an Internal Complaint Committee ICC[6] for the purpose of handling sexual harassment complaints and that this committee must be headed by a Woman and half of its members should be comprise of women thereby placing a legal obligation on employers to provide a safe working environment, preventing sexual harassment and ensuring that a redressal mechanism is set to address complaints arising therefrom.
Legal Impact and Conclusion:
This case highlights a very important turning point in the History in India with regard to gender equality and judicial activism wherein the judiciary created laws to fill the gap created by the legislature. That the establishment of the Vishaka guidelines was the foundation for the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) POSH Act of 2013- which is a codified form of the principles established in the judgement.
With a socio-legal assessment and a fair comment on the case, this case triggered a social change by exposing the issue of sexual harassment and women empowerment to public discourse. In this case involved a social worker- Bhanwari who faced retaliation for preventing child marriage. Her struggle led to the rising of women rights’ groups to file a Public Interest Legislation PIL highlighting workplace sexual harassment. The guidelines shifted responsibility for a safe environment to employers, making them accountable for prevention and redressal. The judgment empowered women by providing a formal mechanism outside the criminal justice system. The case also increased awareness and challenged patriarchal attitudes that previously silenced victims. The mandatory complaint mechanisms institutionalized the process for addressing harassment. In conclusion, I can clearly affirm that this case was a driving force for the legislature to perform due diligence to both sections of the Indian society. They both deserve to be protected from unsafe and hazardous working environment which is what the Vishaka case brought to the Indian Judicial System.
Reference(S):
Manupatra Online Legal Research| Manupatra Academy| Last visited September 29, 2025
https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/manu-sc-0786-1997
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) POSH Act, 2013| Act of Parliament
Revisiting Vishaka v. state of Rajasthan| Bardhan| Last visited September 28, 2025
Constitution of India| Article 14(equality) 15(freedom from discrimination), 19.1g(Freedom of Profession) and 21(right to life and liberty) | Constituent Assembly| Supreme Law
Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women CEDAW| December 18, 1979|OHCHR| the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (prevention, prohibition and redressal) POSH Act, 2013| Mandated provisions for the establishment of an Internal Complaints Committee ICC
https://doe.gov.in/files/inline-documents/DoE_Prevention_sexual_harassment.pdf
[1] Manupatra Online Legal Research| Manupatra Academy| Last visited September 29, 2025
https://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/manu-sc-0786-1997
[2] Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) POSH Act, 2013| Act of Parliament
[3] Revisiting Vishaka v. state of Rajasthan| Bardhan| Last visited September 28, 2025
[4] Constitution of India| Article 14(equality) 15(freedom from discrimination), 19.1g(Freedom of Profession) and 21(right to life and liberty) | Constituent Assembly| Supreme Law
[5] Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women CEDAW| December 18, 1979|OHCHR| the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
[6] u/s 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (prevention, prohibition and redressal) POSH Act, 2013| Mandated provisions for the establishment of an Internal Complaints Committee ICC
https://doe.gov.in/files/inline-documents/DoE_Prevention_sexual_harassment.pdf
