Vishaka & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997)

Case Name: Vishaka & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997)

Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3011; (1997) 6 SCC 241

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: J.S. Verma (C.J.I.), Sujata V. Manohar, and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.

Bench Type: Division Bench

Date: 13 August 1997

Parties Involved

Petitioners: Vishaka and other women’s rights groups (Public Interest Litigation)

Respondents: State of Rajasthan and Union of India

Facts of the Case

• Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, was gang-raped in 1992 while preventing a child marriage.
• The accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence, exposing the absence of effective legal mechanisms to deal with sexual harassment at workplaces.
• Several women’s rights groups filed a PIL under Article 32, demanding guidelines to protect women from sexual harassment at work.

Issues Raised

• Whether sexual harassment at workplace violates the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution?
• Whether the Supreme Court can lay down guidelines in absence of specific legislation?

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners:

• Sexual harassment amounts to violation of equality, liberty, and dignity of women.
• India is a signatory to CEDAW (Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), which mandates protection against workplace harassment.
• In absence of law, the Court must frame guidelines.

Respondents (State):

• There was no specific statutory provision dealing with sexual harassment.
• Law-making power lies with the legislature, not the judiciary.

Judgment / Final Decision

• The Court held that sexual harassment at workplace is a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
• It issued the “Vishaka Guidelines” to be followed until a specific law is enacted.

The appeal was allowed in favor of the petitioners.

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• The Court relied on Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 to establish that gender equality and dignity are integral to the Constitution.
• It invoked Article 51© and international conventions (CEDAW) to fill legislative gaps.
• The Court laid down binding guidelines, mandating employers to:
• Provide a safe working environment
• Create complaints committees with majority women members
• Ensure redressal mechanisms and preventive steps

Conclusion / Observations

• The judgment was a landmark in women’s rights jurisprudence in India. It created the first binding framework against workplace harassment. Eventually, it led to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.