Author: Syed Tauheed, Vidyavardhaka Law College, Sheshadri Iyer Road, Mysuru
To the point
Has a case happened like that of Vishaka v. In State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court of India deliberated on the aspect of sexual harassment of women at workplace. It was the pioneering instance when the Court, without a designated law, issued binding guidelines that could guard women against the harassment at work places. These were declared as the Vishaka Guidelines and were valid until the passing of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Legal Jargon
The ruling is based on constitutional and international law.
Fundamental Rights: The Court stated that Article 14, 15, and 21 are breached by sexual harassment (right against discrimination, equality and life and dignity).
Directive Principles: Article 39 gives the State the mandate to provide women equal pay and good working conditions which further strengthen the protection at work.
International Obligations The Court has used CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) which India ratified, in order to explain the constitutional rights where there is no domestic law.
Judicial Legislation: The Supreme Court used its power under Article 32 to frame the guidelines which exerted the impact of the law until Parliament could pass special legislation.
The Proof
The case appeared with the brutal gang rape of a social worker Bhanwari Devi who ended up being raped when she stopped a child marriage in Rajasthan. The case revealed that the position of women workers and the lack of a law to counter sexual harassment.
A panel of NGOs, one of them being Vishaka, submitted a PIL to the Supreme Court, to have the women be provided with safety in the workplace. According to the Court, due to lack of any law on the matter, women were highly discriminated against and insecure concerning employment.
The Supreme Court not only recognised sexual harassment as a violation of fundamental rights but also stated that it was a kind of gender-based violence and discrimination in accordance to the international human rights law. This was a radical step taken by the Court that guaranteed the Indian women immediate protection in the form of binding guidelines.
Representing equality in the workplace is not the same as social reality.
The Vishaka case is based on the conflict between constitutional philosophy of equality and reality of gender discrimination.
The Indian Constitution entails equality as per the law and equal opportunity, but traditionally, women have had to face harassment, intimidation, and exploitation at the professional workplaces. By also identifying sexual harassment as a contravention of Articles 14 and 21, the Court reasserted that equality cannot legitimately exist unless women can go to work with safety and integrity.
This decision provides an illustration of how courts can close the gap between what the law says on paper and what happens in reality since the lack of legisprudential effort can create a vacuum.
The guidelines of Vishaka
The Court stipulated a series of guidelines that all employers and institutions were given until the time legislation was enacted. The most important points were:
Defining Sexual Harassment – including unwanted physical advancements, demands of sexual favors, sexually-tinted statements, the display of porn, and other verbiage or physically directed sexually-induced behaviors.
Employer Liability- all employers had an obligation to reduce sexual harassment and would provide safe working conditions.
Complaints Committee- they were to set up committees chaired by women with at least half of the committee being female and NGOs representation.
Awareness: the organizations were tasked and guided to create awareness as regards women rights and prevention methods.
Redress Mechanism- steps of complaint, inquiry and action were formulated to offer speedy action.
These guidelines were momentous in that they took the form of law albeit without involving the Parliament.
Case Laws
Vishaka v. A case in the state of Rajasthan (1997)
Framed the Vishaka Guidelines to prohibit sexual harassment at workplace.
Apparel Export Promotion Council v A K Chopra (1999)
The Court had endorsed an order (upto the highest officer) dismissing a senior officer on grounds of sexually harassing a woman employee holding that the act amounted to interference with the dignity and equality of women.
Medha Kotwal Lele v Associate Health (2012)
The Supreme Court made it very clear, to be observed, that institutions should implement the Vishaka Guidelines, in strict compliance as the Supreme Court asserted that they were not being implemented.
Conclusion
Vishaka case (1997) was a revolution in the struggle to tackle workplace harassment in India. The ruling by the Supreme Court ensured that women received their right to equality, dignity, safe working conditions, since there was no law on the matter as guidelines were overruled.
The Vishaka Guidelines were used to fill the interim until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 was enacted and this enlarged and codified the guidelines. The case continues to be an example of judicial activism in the promotion of gender justice, as well as the defense of the most basic rights of women even nowadays.
FAQS
1. What was the Vishaka case dealing with Sei?
It pertained to sexual harassment at the workplace following the rape of a social worker Bhanwari Devi in Rajasthan.
2. What are the Vishakha Guidelines?
They are a series of guidelines provided by the Supreme Court of India in 1997, to prevent and address sexual assaults at the work place, which remained effective until being overridden by a law in 2013.
3. What is so important about the case?
During this case, it acknowledged the existence of sexual harassment as a contravention of fundamental rights and equality between men and women, and international human rights standards were introduced into the Indian law.
4. What law superseded the Vishaka Guidelines?
According to The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
5. What is opined about the case as far as judicial activism is concerned?
The Court established a precedent even in the absence of corresponding legislation, and this was binding to safeguard women; this is one of the ways in which the judiciary may become instrumental in filling the legislative vacuum to enforce rights.
