Authored By: Rohit Yadav
GNLU GANDHINAGAR
Full Case Name : Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors
Citation : AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011 : (1997) 6 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 932.
Case No : Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos.666-70 of 1992
Court : Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement : 13 August 1997
Bench Composition : Chief Justice J.S Sharma, Justice Sujata V. Manohar and Justice B. N. Kirpal
Introduction
In the year 1992,Bhanwari Devi, a social worker employed by the Rajasthan Government, was brutally gang- raped for preventing child marriage. When she sought justice, institutional apathy revealed a legal vacuum – had no law addressing the workplace sexual harassment. This led to Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors, AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011, a PIL filed by the women’s NGOs. The Supreme Court through a bench of Chief Justice J.S Sharma, Justice Sujata V. Manohar and Justice B. N. Kirpal invoked CEDAW (Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination) and Article 51(c) the Constitution to fill the void. The Court laid down the “Vishaka Guidelines”, mandating the preventive and redressal mechanisms. This case summary outlines the factual matrix, legal reasoning, and the legacy of the judgement.[1]
Facts of the Case
Bhanwari Devi, resident of Bhateri, Rajasthan. She began working under Women’s Development Project (WDP) run by the Government of Rajasthan, in the year 1985. In 1987, She took up an issue of attempted rape of a woman from neighbouring village, as a pert of her job. For this act, she gained full support from the people of village. She took up another issue in the 1992 based on the government’s campaign against child marriage and attempted to stop child marriage. This campaign was opposed by the villagers despite their knowledge that child marriage is prohibited under law.
Ram Karan Gurjar’s family had arranged the marriage of his infant daughter. Committed to her duties, Bhanwari Devi attempted to prevent the child marriage and not to consummate it, but all efforts proved futile. On the 5th of May 199, the SDO (Sub Divisional Officer) along with DSP (Deputy Superintendent of Police) went and stopped the said marriage. However, the wedding took place next day despite the visit of police to stop. Later, it they discovered Bhanwari Devi’s acts were the cause of the police inspection. As a result, Bhanwari Devi along with her family was boycotted, and she also lost her job due to the aforesaid reason[2].
On September 22, 1992, five men named- Ram Sukh Gujjar, Gyarsa Gujjar, Ram Karan Gujjar, Badri Gujjar and Shravan Sharma assaulted Bhanwari Devi’s husband and gang-raped her in retaliation for her intervention. When she went to police station for the filing complaint but the police made every possible effort to avoid making any complaints against the accused which caused the delay in inquiry and there was a delay of more than two days in her medical examination. However, the report’s examiner only highlighted the victim’s age rather than determination of any instances of rape.
The trial court acquitted all the defendants due to of lack of proper evidence and with the assistance of local MLA Dhanraj Meena. However, numerous organization and female activists spoke out in favour of justice for Bhanwari Devi, as a consequence, a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) was filed.
This PIL (Public Interest Litigation) was filed by the “Vishaka”, a women’s rights organization. This was focused on majorly placed on upholding women’s fundamental rights at work in accordance with Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It also raised the issue of the need for the protection of women form sexual harassment at the workplace.
Legal Issues raised in the case
- Whether sexual harassment at the workplace amounts to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to her within article 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 ?
- Whether the court could apply the international laws in the absence of applicable law under existing ?
- Whether the employer has any responsibility when sexual harassment is done to/by its employees ?
- Whether enactment of the guidelines is essential to curb the sexual harassment at the workplace ?
Arguments Presented
Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments
The Vishaka group, (which comprised of various women’s rights activists, NGOs, and other social activists) filed a writ petition, seeking the writ of mandamus.
Violation of Fundamental Rights
The petitioner contended that the acts of sexual harassment of women at the workplace infringes the fundamental rights enshrined under article 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India. This brought the attention of the Hon’ble Court to the loophole that legislation has regarding the provision of safe working environment for women. They requested Hon’ble Court to frame guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at the workplace.
Role of International Conventions
It was argued in the court that, India has also ratified to the CEDAW ( Convention on the Elimination on all forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979). The petitioner relied upon the case of the Minister of immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teor (1995), it was held that where there is a lacuna in the law or the law is silent on a particular issue, then the Court can rely upon the international convention subject to which they should not be inconsistent with the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution to the citizens of India. The petitioners urged the Supreme Court to safeguard and protect the interests of women in order to promote their contribution towards the country’s growth.
Duty of the Judiciary
The petitioner further contended that it becomes the duty or obligation of the court to implement rules and regulation that can help in eradicating such where there is no specific legislation dealing with the said issue. The petitioner stated that Bhanwari is not the single lady who has suffered from this ; there are many of them but due to fear of being stigmatised and societal pressure. People do not file complaints against such crimes.
Respondent’s Arguments
In this case, the learned Solicitor General took an uncommon step of supporting the petitioners while appearing on behalf of the respondents (with their assent). The respondent helped the Hon’ble Supreme Court formulate the standards for preventing sexual harassment and come up with an efficient way to stop it. The honorable court’s amicus curiae, Fali S. Nariman, together with Ms. Meenakshi and Ms. Naina Kapur, assisted the honorable court in handling the aforementioned matter.
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court, while dealing with first issue, stated that acts of sexual harassment are gross infringement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India.
Article 14 provides equality before law and equal protection to law[3]
Article 15 prohibits discrimination by the state on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. It permits special provisions for women, children, and backward classes.[4]
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees all citizens the right to practise any profession, occupation, trade or business. This right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).[5]
Article 21 guarantees no person shall be deprived of life or person liberty except by procedure established by law. It includes right to dignity and safe environment.[6]
The violation of such rights allows the victim to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution to seek a remedy for the purpose of enforcing her fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution.
While Dealing with second issue, acknowledged the case presented before that, where there is a lacuna in the law or the law is silent on a particular issue, then the Court can rely upon the international convention subject to which they should not be inconsistent with the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III and safeguarding the rights guaranteed to the citizens, as enshrined under Article 51(c) of the Indian Constitution as in the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Third issue in which court said that Duty of the employer: employers and responsible individuals in work places are responsible for preventing and deterring sexual harassment, and providing procedures for resolution, settlement, or prosecution of such acts.
The court Dealing with the last issue said that It is essential. The Supreme Court took regard to Section 2(d) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and opined that India has no penal or civil law presently to deal with the issue and making of such legislation of such law will take a long time . Because of that it these guidelines and after the proper legislation will get enforced and then these guidelines will ease to exist. it paved the way for the implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), Act, 2013, which is the first legislation that deals with the protection of women from sexual harassment at the workplace.
Critical Analysis
This landmark judgment and Vishaka guidelines played an instrumental role in empowering women at workplace by providing a legal system to combat sexual harassment. The Court influenced by the international conventions and laws, connected the issue to the law of the land, thereby creating a new law., However, The Vishaka case highlights that India’s efforts to address the gender inequality and sexual harassment through employment and law provisions. But it has not taken the social responsibility for creating safer environment, many incidents of sexual harassment remain unreported highlighting the need for women to adapt “safe” working environment. Despite availability of remedies through the law, women facing the sexual harassment at workplace still face uncertainty about their safety.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court issued various important guidelines for the employees to follow them and avoid sexual harassment of women at workplace. The court also suggested to have proper techniques for the implementation of cases where there is sexual harassment at workplace. The Supreme Court also issued guidelines to impose penalties on the wrongdoers in this regard.
Reference(S):
[1] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/
[2] https://blog.ipleaders.in/vishaka-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-1997/#Introduction
[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/367586/
[4] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/609295/
[5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1218090/
[6] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1199182/
