Published On: 19th October, 2024
Authored By: Aditi Sharma
ILS College
Vishakha & Ors. V State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CASE– Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors
COURT- Supreme Court of India
DATE- 1997
CITATION- (1997) 6 SCC 241
INTRODUCTION-
The Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) case is a major decision by India’s Supreme Court that established the framework for dealing with workplace sexual harassment. The case was sparked by the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, and highlighted the lack of regulations to protect women from harassment in professional settings. Invoking constitutional rights and international agreements, the Court issued the Vishakha Guidelines, which mandated preventive and redressal methods. This decision had a significant impact on India’s legislative framework for workplace safety, ultimately leading to the 2013 Sexual Harassment Act.
FACTS-
Bhanwari Devi, a woman from Bhateri, Rajasthan, began working for the Women’s Development Project (WDP) administered by the Rajasthan government in 1985. As part of her position in 1992, Bhanwari addressed an issue related to the government’s campaign against child marriage. The people were unaware of the situation and encouraged child marriages although knowing that it was unlawful. Meanwhile, Ram Karan Gurjar’s family decided to arrange for the marriage of his minor daughter. Bhanwari attempted to persuade the family not to execute the marriage. However, her efforts proved in futile. The family decided to proceed with the marriage. On the day of the marriage, the sub-divisional officer, together with the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), went to stop the marriage. However, the marriage was performed the following day, and no police action was taken against it. The locals later confirmed that the police visits were due to Bhanwari Devi’s actions. This resulted in a boycott of Bhanwari Devi and her family, which caused her to lose her job. To take revenge, five men, four from the aforementioned Gurjar family, attacked Bhanwari Devi’s husband and viciously gang-raped her. The police attempted to use all tactics to keep her from filing a complaint, causing a delay in the inquiry as well as a medical test, which was postponed for 52 hours only to discover that no mention of rape was made in the report. Simultaneously she was severely harassed by the villagers. There was a gross mishandling of the matter by the Police. In the absence of substantial evidence and severe politics surrounding the case, all of the accused were acquitted by the Trial Court. Women activists and organizations chose not to remain silent, raising powerful rallies and voices against the verdict. The case got major attention at the national level due to gross mishandling of the case which led to miscarriage of justice. This resulted in the filing of a PIL by a women’s rights organization known as ‘Vishaka’, which focused on the enforcement of women’s fundamental workplace rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, as well as the need to protect them from sexual harassment at work.
ISSUES-
If formal guidelines were required to deal with incidents involving sexual harassment in the workplace?
Whether sexual harassment at the workplace amounts to the violation of the fundamental rights of a woman?
If the employer have any responsibility in cases of sexual harassment by its employees or to its employees at a workplace?
CONTENTION-
In her writ petition, Vishaka argued that, in the lack of sufficient legislation, sexual harassment at work is a widespread occurrence and that employers frequently get away with it. These actions infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed to women by Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner sought the court to direct the Indian government to refer to articles of international conventions and establish guidelines to govern issues such as gender equality and workplace harassment of women.
The respondent’s counsel provided significant assistance to the Court in dealing with the discussed societal evil. Additionally, Ms. Meenakshi Arora and Ms. Naina Kapur assisted the Court. Shri. Fali S. Nariman, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, also assisted the Court.
COURT’S ANALYSIS-
Constitutional provisions- The Court based its decision on the fundamental rights protected by Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. It stressed that sexual harassment violates both the fundamental right to gender equality (Article 14) and the right to life and dignity (Article 21). The right to a safe working environment was regarded as essential to these rights.
International conventions- The Court referred to the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which India has ratified. The Court recognized India’s international obligations under CEDAW to guarantee gender equality and protect women from sexual harassment.
Judicial Activism– This case is a notable example of judicial activism, where the Court filled the legislative gap by creating enforceable guidelines to protect women’s rights at the workplace until appropriate legislation was passed.
DECISION-
A three-judge panel led by Justice J.S. Verma heard this matter. The panel concluded that although “gender equality” is not specifically defined in any law or article, it is covered by articles 14, 19, and 21. The Indian Constitution’s Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 guarantee fundamental rights were in fact violated by sexual harassment at work, the court ruled.
Sexual harassment of women at work is against their fundamental human rights, especially the concept of ‘Gender Equality,’ which is itself against the Indian Constitution’s guarantees of women’s rights. The fundamental right of Indian people to practice whatever profession they choose, as well as to engage in any occupation, trade, or company, is likewise violated by these infractions, as stated in Article 19 (1) (g). Specifically, this right places a legal duty on the employer to guarantee a safe workplace for female employees and to make sure that there is no discrimination against female employees. The court pointed out that the right to live in dignity was part of the Right to Life as guaranteed by Article 21.
“Sexually determined behavior (whether directly or indirectly) like physical contact and advances, a demand or request for sexual favors, sexually colored remarks, showing pornography, or any other unwelcome physical verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature” are examples of unwanted behavior that the court defined as sexual harassment.
The honorable court also observed that inadequate laws and legal loopholes contributed to the growth of such horrible acts. The petitioner’s argument that establishing clear rules and norms would be the most effective means of reducing workplace violations against women was supported by the Supreme Court. The Indian government and the state of Rajasthan were ordered by the court to make sure that the court’s regulations are adhered to in all workplaces.
The Court created rules and norms to be followed in all workplaces until legislation under Article 32 is passed to implement the Constitution’s Fundamental Rights, given the absence of domestic law governing gender equality and sexual harassment in the workplace. The court also declared this to be a law in accordance with Article 141 of the Constitution. The Vishakha Guidelines were the name given to the court’s rules.
SIGNIFICANCE-
The case is noteworthy because it gave India’s legal system a framework for addressing workplace sexual harassment. The Supreme Court created the Vishakha Guidelines, which mandate that businesses maintain a safe workplace for women, in the absence of specific domestic legislation. These regulations recognized the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to life and dignity (Article 21) as being violated by sexual harassment. The Court further reiterated India’s commitment to advancing gender equality by citing international agreements like CEDAW. Prior to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 being passed, the Vishakha Guidelines were not legally binding.
In India’s legal system, this ruling was a significant step toward combating workplace discrimination, defending women’s rights, and advancing gender equality.
CONCLUSION-
The 1997 case of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan set guidelines for stopping workplace sexual harassment. The significance of a safe workplace for women was emphasized by the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the constitutional rights to equality and dignity. By offering provisional protection until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act of 2013 was passed, the Vishakha Guidelines filled a legislative hole. The lawsuit played a pivotal role in advancing gender parity and recognizing workplace harassment as a significant infringement against women’s rights.
