Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241

Name of the case – Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation of the case- (1997) 6 SCC 241

Nature of the case– Criminal & Constitutional

Name of the court where the case was filed- Hon’ble Supreme Court of india

Petitioners in the case- Vishaka and Ors.

Respondents in the case- The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon’ble bench- Chief Justice J.S. Verma, Justice Sujata V. Manohar, and Justice B.N. Kirpal.

Judgment passed on- 13th August, 1997

Introduction

Sexual harassment is unwanted behaviour based on a person’s sex or gender. It includes a wide range of actions, from inappropriate comments and gestures to more severe acts like coercion, bribery, or sexual assault. The behaviour can be verbal, physical, or non-verbal and may be either obvious or subtle. Common examples include making sexually suggestive remarks, displaying pornography, requesting sexual favours, making offensive advances, or engaging in conduct that demeans someone based on their gender. Sexual harassment can occur in many environments, such as the workplace, home, educational institutions, or religious settings. It affects people of all genders, and both victims and perpetrators can be male, female, or non-binary. Regardless of the form it takes, sexual harassment creates a hostile or uncomfortable environment for the person experiencing it and can have lasting emotional, psychological, and professional impacts. Addressing and preventing it is essential for promoting respect and equality in all areas of life. A workplace is supposed to be a comfortable and respectful environment, where any person, regardless of their gender, should be able to work and earn a living in a peaceful manner. If that peace gets interrupted with something so scarring and detrimental, it becomes impossible to work. People often fall prey to blackmail, threats and fear of losing jobs after facing such unwanted behaviours. [1]

Before the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), there were no laws or rules that recognised workplace harassment in a structured way. IPC Sections 354 and 509 could be invoked in case of sexual misconduct, but these provisions lacked focus on workplace-specific contexts, protection mechanisms, or employer responsibilities. There were no preventive laws, or internal complaint mechanisms under civil law to handle sexual harassment at work.  While the constitution provided a broad framework for equality and dignity under Article 14, 15 and 21, no judicial recognition was provided to workplace harassment and employers felt no responsibility to make sure their employers are safe.

This landmark judgement eventually led to the passing of the POSH Act, in 2013, that mandates the prevention, prohibition, and redressal of sexual harassment of women at the workplace.

Factual Background

Bhanwari Devi, a resident of Bhateri village in Rajasthan, began working in 1985 with the Women’s Development Project (WDP), a government initiative, where she served as a Saathin—a term meaning “friend” in Hindi. In 1987, as part of her duties, Bhanwari addressed a case involving an attempted rape of a woman from a nearby village. Her efforts in this matter were strongly supported by the people in her own village. However, in 1992, when she became involved in the government’s campaign to end child marriage, she faced widespread resistance. Despite the villagers’ awareness that child marriage is illegal, they rejected the campaign’s message and disregarded her efforts. During this time, Ram Karan Gurjar’s family was planning a child marriage for his infant daughter. Bhanwari, committed to her responsibilities, tried to convince them to cancel the wedding. Unfortunately, her efforts were unsuccessful, and the family proceeded with the marriage as planned. On May 5, 1992, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) intervened to halt the planned child marriage. Despite this intervention, the marriage was carried out the following day without any legal consequences. The villagers soon learned that the police action had been triggered by Bhanwari Devi’s involvement, which led to her and her family being socially ostracized. Amid this backlash, Bhanwari also lost her position. Tragically, on September 22, 1992, in an act of retaliation, five men—four from the same family: Ram Sukh Gujjar, Gyarsa Gujjar, Ram Karan Gujjar, and Badri Gujjar, along with Shravan Sharma—assaulted Bhanwari Devi’s husband and then brutally gang-raped her.[2]

The police employed various unethical tactics to dissuade Bhanwari Devi from lodging a formal complaint, resulting in significant delays in both the investigation and her medical examination—which was postponed for 52 hours. When the examination was finally conducted, it failed to mention any evidence of rape. In the middle of the night, a police officer instructed her to surrender her lehnga as evidence and return to her village. Left with only her husband’s bloodstained dhoti to cover herself, she and her husband were forced to spend the entire night at the police station in that state.

Due to the lack of concrete evidence and with the influence of local MLA Dhanraj Meena, all the accused were acquitted by the Trial Court. This sparked outrage among women’s rights activists and organisations, who refused to remain silent. They launched strong protests against the verdict. In response, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by a women’s rights group named Vishaka, which aimed to uphold the constitutional rights of women—specifically under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21—and called for protection against sexual harassment in the workplace.[3]

Issues Before the Court

• Whether sexual harassment violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21
• Whether Supreme Court can frame guidelines in absence of legislation
• Whether international conventions (like CEDAW) can be used for domestic law interpretation
• Whether there was a need for guidelines and norms to prevent and address sexual harassment in the workplace.

Legal Provisions and Arguments

Petitioner’s reliance on:

• • Article 14: Right to equality
  • Article 15: Prohibition of gender-based discrimination
  • Article 19(1)(g): Freedom to practice any profession
  • Article 21: Right to life and dignity

Petitioner’s Arguments:

In light of the prevailing environment, in which these rights were routinely violated, a writ petition had been filed to enforce the basic rights of working women under Articles 14,15,19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The endeavour to prevent such violations has increased along with knowledge of and emphasis on gender justice; indignation toward instances of sexual harassment was also growing.
Some social activists and NGOs filed the petition as a class action in order to draw attention to this social anomaly, aid in the development of appropriate strategies for realizing the actual meaning of “gender equality” and prevent sexual harassment of working women in all workplace settings through a proper judicial process.

Respondent’s Arguments:

There was lack of legislation on this matter. The experienced Solicitor General backed the petitioners while speaking on behalf of the respondents in this matter (with their cooperation). The respondent helped the honourable court come up with a practical strategy to stop sexual harassment and design the rules for its avoidance. The Hon’ble court received assistance in handling the aforementioned case from Fali S. Nariman, the amicus curiae of the Hon’ble court, as well as from Ms. Naina Kapur and Ms. Meenakshi.

Judgment

This case was decided by a three-judge bench led by Justice J.S. Verma. The Court held that although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly define the term “gender equality,” its essence is embedded within Articles 14, 19, and 21. The judges recognized that sexual harassment of women at the workplace amounts to a violation of basic human rights and undermines gender equality, thereby breaching the fundamental rights guaranteed under these provisions.

In particular, the Court emphasized that Article 19(1)(g)—which guarantees the right to practice any profession or engage in any occupation, trade, or business—places a duty on employers to ensure a safe and non-discriminatory work environment for women. The Court further clarified that Article 21, which protects the right to life, also includes the right to live with dignity, and sexual harassment at work is a direct violation of this right. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners and concluded that the most effective way to address workplace offenses against women was to establish specific guidelines and norms. The Court directed both the Government of India and the State of Rajasthan to implement these guidelines at all workplaces with utmost seriousness and strict compliance.

At the time of the judgment in 1997, India did not have any specific legislation addressing workplace harassment or broader issues of gender equality in employment. In light of this legal vacuum, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Articles 141 and 32 of the Constitution to declare that the guidelines it laid down would hold the force of law until appropriate legislation was enacted by Parliament.

To frame these norms, the Court allowed reliance on international conventions and treaties, provided they did not conflict with Indian laws. In doing so, the Court exercised its authority under Article 51(c), which encourages respect for international law and treaty obligations, in conjunction with Article 253 and Entry 14 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule), which empower the central government to make laws implementing international agreements. Thus, the Vishaka judgment became a landmark decision, laying the foundation for workplace safety for women and serving as the first legal framework in India to address sexual harassment at work in the absence of formal legislation.[4]

Significance

The case led to the Vishaka Guidelines, which were a landmark set of procedural rules introduced in India to tackle incidents of sexual harassment, particularly in the workplace. Issued by the Supreme Court in 1997, they filled a legislative gap in protecting women from harassment at work, emphasizing the right to a safe working environment as part of fundamental rights under the Constitution. These guidelines outlined preventive steps, complaint mechanisms, and the responsibility of employers to ensure safety. They served as the primary legal framework on this issue for over a decade, until the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act in 2013, which codified and expanded upon their principles. In the Vishaka judgment, the Supreme Court of India drew on international human rights law—specifically the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)—to formulate guidelines addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. The Court held that such conduct violates women’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, and issued a writ of mandamus outlining binding directions for employers.

Key Elements of the Vishaka Guidelines:

1. Employer’s Duty: It is the responsibility of the employer or those in charge of workplaces to prevent sexual harassment and establish mechanisms for resolution.
2. Definition of Sexual Harassment: The Court defined sexual harassment to include unwelcome sexually determined behavior, whether direct or implied, such as:
   • Physical contact and advances
   • A demand or request for sexual favours
   • Sexually coloured remarks
   • Showing pornography
   • Any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature
3. Preventive Measures: Employers must:
   • Publicly prohibit sexual harassment in official policies
   • Include it in rules of conduct and discipline, with penalties
   • Update standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 in private sectors
   • Ensure safe, respectful, and hygienic working conditions
4. Criminal Proceedings: Employers must take action when behavior qualifies as a criminal offence, assist victims in filing complaints, and prevent retaliation.
5. Disciplinary Action: Misconduct under service rules must trigger appropriate disciplinary measures.
6. Complaint Mechanism: Every organization should establish a system to receive and address complaints effectively and promptly.
7. Complaints Committee: A committee led by a woman and comprising at least 50% women members should be created. It must include an external third party (like an NGO) to ensure impartiality. Confidentiality should be maintained, and an annual report of cases and actions taken must be submitted to the relevant authorities.
8. Workers’ Involvement: Employees should be encouraged to raise concerns about harassment in meetings and discussions.
9. Awareness: Awareness campaigns and visible postings about women’s rights and protections must be carried out in workplaces.
10. Third-party Harassment: If the harasser is not part of the organization, the employer must still take necessary steps to support the victim.
11. Government Action: State and Central governments were urged to consider legislation ensuring compliance in the private sector as well.[5]

• Though they held the force of law, they were judicial directives rather than legislation. Over time, growing awareness, advocacy by women’s rights groups, and the need for a more robust legal mechanism led to the formal enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act in 2013. This Act codified and expanded upon the Vishaka Guidelines, providing a comprehensive statutory framework for prevention and redressal of workplace sexual harassment.
• The Vishaka judgement laid the foundation for the PoSH Act (2013) by acting as its de facto legal framework before formal legislation.
• It exemplified judicial activism, invoking constitutional rights (Articles 14, 15, 21) and CEDAW to address workplace harassment.
• The judgment remains judicially relevant, often cited to interpret PoSH, especially in ambiguous or unaddressed scenarios.
• It initiated a compliance culture in workplaces, promoting awareness and the setup of ICCs—practices still based on the Vishaka guidelines.

Conclusion

The Vishaka Guidelines, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, played a pivotal role in empowering women by offering a legal mechanism to address sexual harassment in the workplace. Drawing from international conventions and legal frameworks, the Court integrated these principles into Indian law, effectively establishing new legal standards in the absence of specific domestic legislation. The Vishaka judgment marked a turning point in how workplace harassment was perceived—shifting it from being treated as a trivial issue to one of serious legal and social concern.

Nevertheless, the case also underscores a critical gap: while legal and employment provisions have been introduced to tackle gender inequality and harassment, there remains a lack of collective social responsibility to ensure safe workplaces. Many instances of harassment still go unreported, reflecting a societal expectation for women to adapt to unsafe environments rather than holding perpetrators accountable. Despite legal remedies being available, women often continue to feel insecure about their safety at work.[6]

Reference(S):

[1] ‘Sexual harassment’ (Wikipedia, no date) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment  > accessed 19 June 2025.

[2] iPleaders, ‘Vishaka & Ors vs State of Rajasthan & Ors (1997)’ (iPleaders, 3 March 2020) https://blog.ipleaders.in/vishaka-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-1997/ accessed 20 June 2025.

[3] Rajeswari Rajesh, ‘Vishaka & Ors v State of Rajasthan & Ors (1997)’ (Legal Bites, 20 March 2023) https://www.legalbites.in/vishaka-ors-v-state-of-rajasthan-1997 accessed 20 June 2025.

[4] Vishaka and others v State of Rajasthan and others AIR 1997 SC 3011 <https://judicateme.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Vishaka-v.-State-of-Rajasthan-Ors.pdf\> accessed 20 June 2025

[5] Ungender, ‘Here is Everything You Need to Know About Vishaka Guidelines’ (Ungender, 2 February 2024) https://www.ungender.in/here-is-everything-you-need-to-know-about-vishaka-guidelines/ accessed 20 June 2025

[6] Ananya Pathak, ‘Case Analysis: Vishaka & ors. vs State of Rajasthan & ors. (1997) 6 SCC 241’ (Jusscriptum Law, 19 December 2023) https://www.jusscriptumlaw.com/post/case-analysis-vishaka-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ors-1997-6-scc-241 accessed 20 June 2025 jusscriptumlaw.com+1en.wikipedia.org+1