VISHAKA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN  

Case Name: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan 

Court: Supreme Court of India 

Date of Decision: 13th August 1997 

Citation: (1997) 6 SCC 241 

Introduction 

Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 is a landmark judgment by the  Supreme Court of India which profoundly influenced the legal framework for workplace  safety and gender justice in the country. By establishing standards to forbid and address  workplace sexual harassment, which is a breach of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court’s  action addressed a huge legal hole. This precedent stands as a testimony to the role of the  Supreme Court in upholding constitutional guarantees and international obligations in the  context of human dignity and gender equality. 

Facts of the Case  

• Petitioners: Vishaka (a collective of NGOs and individuals) 
• Respondents: State of Rajasthan 
• Nature of the case: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Constitutional   Procedural history: Petition directly presented to the Supreme Court under Article  32 due to violation of fundamental rights in the absence of legislation. 

Key Facts: 

The present case arose from a heinous and disturbing incident that took place in Rajasthan in  the year 1992, involving Bhanwari Devi, a Dalit woman and a Saathin (grassroots social  worker) engaged with the Women’s Development Project of the Government of Rajasthan. In  her official capacity, Bhanwari Devi undertook the responsibility of raising awareness about  child marriage prevention — a social evil explicitly prohibited under the Child Marriage  Restraint Act, 1929. 

In the course of her duties, she attempted to prevent the solemnization of a child marriage  within her community. This act of enforcement provoked hostility from dominant upper-caste men, who perceived her actions as a challenge to their social authority. As a consequence, she  was brutally gang-raped by five men in broad daylight in her own field — an act that exposed  the grave risks faced by women working at the grassroots, particularly from marginalized  communities. 

The incident triggered widespread outrage across the country and prompted intense public  discourse on gender-based violence and the systemic failure of the state to ensure the safety  of working women. In response, a coalition of women’s rights activists and organizations, led  by Vishaka — a collective of NGOs and women’s groups — approached the Supreme Court  of India by way of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution. 

The PIL emphasized the urgent need for a legal framework to address and prevent sexual  harassment at the workplace, which, until then, remained unregulated by any specific statute. 

Primary Issue(s)  

• Does sexual harassment at work violate the Indian Constitution’s fundamental rights to  equality (Article 14), dignity (Article 21), and freedom to seek employment (Article 19(1)(g))? 
• Whether the Supreme Court can frame guidelines and create a framework to prohibit and  redress workplace sexual harassment in the absence of legislation? 

Arguments  

Petitioners’ Arguments: 

• Sexual harassment constitutes a form of gender discrimination prohibited by Articles  14 and 15 of the constitution. 
• It directly impacts a woman’s dignity (Article 21) and their freedom to pursue  employment (Article 19(1)(g)). 
• The state’s failure to provide a framework for addressing workplace harassment  constitutes a violation of its constitutional obligations. 
• The state is required to forbid and end all types of discrimination against women,  including harassment at work, under the Convention on the Elimination of All types of  Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), to which India is a party.

Respondents’ Arguments: 

• The State of Rajasthan argued that there were already criminal legislation and penalties  in place under the Indian Penal Code (such as Section 376 — rape) to deal with crimes  against women. 
• Framing additional guidelines, in its view, fell within the legislative domain of  Parliament, and the Supreme Court should avoid policy-making and leave this to the  legislature. 

Court’s Analysis (Reasons and Ruling)  

The Supreme Court, delivering its judgment under Chief Justice J.S. Verma, held: 

• Sexual harassment constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights to dignity (Article  21), equality (Article 14), and employment (Article 19(1)(g)). 
• In view of the legislative vacuum, the Supreme Court drew upon international  instruments such as CEDAW and its constitutional duties under Article 32 to frame  Vishaka guidelines- a set of procedural safeguards meant to prohibit, prevent and enable  a framework for addressing complaints of workplace harassment until legislation is  enacted by Parliament. 
• The state bears an affirmation duty to Protect the women’s dignity and enable their  participation in employment without fear of harassment. 

Decision (Vishaka Guidelines)  

In the absence of specific legislation addressing the issue of workplace sexual harassment, the  Supreme Court of India exercised its constitutional authority under Article 32 and issued a set  of binding guidelines in the interest of protecting women’s fundamental rights to equality,  dignity, and safe working conditions. These guidelines — commonly known as the Vishaka  Guidelines — were framed in conformity with both constitutional provisions and international  obligations, particularly India’s commitment under CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination  of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women).

The Vishaka Guidelines laid down comprehensive directives for both public and private  employers to ensure a harassment-free work environment for women. The core components of  the guidelines are as follows: 

Definition of Sexual Harassment:

The Court broadly defined sexual harassment to include any unwelcome sexually determined  behaviour, whether direct or implied, such as: 

• Physical contact and advances 
• A demand or request for sexual favours 
• Sexually coloured remarks 
• Display or circulation of pornography 
• Any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature 

Complaint Mechanism:

Every workplace — whether in the public or private sector — must establish a Complaints  Committee with the following features:

• Headed by a woman chairperson 
• At least 50% of the members must be women 
• The committee must include an external member (from an NGO or legal background)  to ensure impartiality. 

Awareness and Prevention:

Employers have a duty to: 

• Clearly prohibit sexual harassment through official policies and codes of conduct 
• Ensure widespread dissemination and awareness among employees regarding rights  and redressal mechanisms 
• Take immediate and appropriate action on complaints 
• Organize training and sensitization workshops for employees and supervisors

Protection of the Victim:

The Court mandated that the complainant (victim) must be protected from retaliation,  victimization, or discriminatory treatment during and after the complaint process.  Confidentiality of the complainant’s identity and grievance process must be maintained. 

Other Directions and Responsibilities of the State:

The Supreme Court directed both employers and the State to work proactively towards  eliminating sexual harassment by: 

• Framing and implementing preventive measures and internal rules 
• Ensuring confidential and time-bound investigations 
• Providing adequate punishment to the accused, if found guilty 
• Supporting victims with legal aid and counselling 
• Ultimately enacting comprehensive legislation to provide a permanent legal framework  for protection against workplace harassment 

These guidelines were to be treated as binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution of  India until suitable legislation was enacted by Parliament. This eventually led to the enactment  of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,  2013. 

Significance (Impact on Law)  

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan is a path-breaking precedent which: 

• Developed the idea that sexual harassment at work is a violation of the constitution’s  fundamental rights. 
• The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and  Redressal) Act, 2013 was directly influenced by this. 
• Contributed significantly to raising awareness about gender justice and workplace  safety in India. 
• Reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s role in filling legislative gaps when there’s a violation  of fundamental rights while honouring the separation of powers.

Conclusion (Personal Analysis)

Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan stands as a powerful affirmation by the Supreme Court  that the constitution guarantees dignity, equality, and freedom for all — especially for women.  The case underscores the necessity for workplaces to be free from harassment, and for  institutions to enable mechanisms for redress and justice. It shows how judicial intervention  can make a profound and positive change in securing fundamental rights when legislation is  silent or incomplete. 

Reference(S):

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 S.C.C. 241 (India). 
• The Constitution of India, art. 14, 21, 19(1)(g). 
• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women  (CEDAW) (1979). 
• The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and  Redressal) Act, 2013 (Act 14 of 2013). 
• The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 (Act 19 of 1929). 
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860). 
• This case summary is written by Priya Patel of S.S. Khanna Girls’ Degree  College (University of Allahabad) Prayagraj.