Author: Supritha Ramakrishnan, Institute of Law, Nirma University
I. Overview
The rights and dignity of working women are gravely violated by sexual harassment in the workplace. Such cases were either ignored or handled insufficiently under general criminal law provisions prior to the passage of specific legislation in India. The Supreme Court of India’s landmark 1997 ruling in Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan altered workplace safety by establishing legally binding standards for stopping and dealing with sexual harassment of women in the workplace.
The ruling is a potent illustration of how the Indian judiciary has filled legislative gaps and administered justice by drawing on international commitments and constitutional morality. It was the first time the Supreme Court created legally binding rules for public and private employers, and it directly addressed sexual harassment in the workplace. In addition to providing the petitioners with immediate relief, the case has a lasting effect on Indian law, ultimately leading to the passage of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (also known as the POSH Act).
II. Case Background
The gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker working for the Rajasthan government’s Women’s Development Program, gave rise to the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. Her duties included encouraging women’s empowerment and preventing child marriages in rural Rajasthan. Bhanwari Devi made an effort to halt a child marriage that sparked a violent backlash in a nearby Gujjar community. In retaliation, five men from the upper caste gang-raped her.
The trial court ultimately acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence, despite the police’s reluctance to cooperate despite having medical evidence and filing a formal complaint. Following a public outcry over the criminal justice system’s inability to deliver justice, a group of organizations advocating for women’s rights filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that the fundamental rights of working women had been violated.
III. Respondents and Petitioners
The case’s name comes from the fact that the petitioners included a number of women’s rights activists and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including the group “Vishaka.” The people who responded were the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan.
The petitioners emphasized the lack of effective domestic legislation for the protection of women workers, particularly in unorganized sectors, and called for policies and procedures to address and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
IV. Legal Matters Before the Court
Does India have any laws that address sexual harassment in the workplace?
Does sexual harassment violate the Constitution’s Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 as well as other fundamental rights?
Without parliamentary legislation, can the Court create guidelines?
Can the legal void be filled by invoking international conventions and treaties, especially the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)?
V. The Deliverance of the Judgment
The bench that delivered the ruling was headed by Justices Sujata Manohar and B.N. Kirpal, as well as Chief Justice J.S. Verma. The Court’s unanimous decision is now regarded as one of the most influential and progressive rulings in Indian legal history.
The Court decided:
Women’s fundamental rights are violated by sexual harassment at work under:
Article 14: Equality before the law.
Article 15: Prohibition of sex-based discrimination.
Article 19(1)(g): The freedom to engage in any occupation, trade, or business.
Article 21: The right to life and personal freedom, which encompasses the right to a dignified existence.
Since there isn’t a specific law that addresses sexual harassment in the workplace, the Supreme Court used Article 141 of the Constitution (binding on all courts) and Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies) to establish rules that were to be followed until laws were passed.
The Court further ruled that the interpretation and extension of fundamental rights could be done through international treaties such as CEDAW, which India ratified in 1993. The Court underlined that, absent a conflict with domestic statutes, these international commitments can still be used in constitutional interpretation even though they are not enshrined in domestic law.
VI. The Guidelines of Vishaka
The Vishaka Guidelines, a set of legally binding guidelines created by the Supreme Court, required organizations and workplaces to stop and deal with sexual harassment. According to Article 141, these rules were legally binding.
Among the guidelines’ essential components were:
1. Sexual harassment is defined as:
Any inappropriate sexually determined behavior, whether overt or covert, like:
Advances and physical contact.
A request or demand for sexual favors.
Sexually suggestive comments.
Displaying explicit material.
Any additional unwanted sexual behavior, whether it be verbal, physical, or nonverbal.
2. Preventive Measures:
To guarantee a safe workplace, employers must take preventative action.
Internal regulations that specifically forbid sexual harassment.
Raising awareness through notices and workshops.
3. Mechanism for Complaints:
Companies were instructed to set up a Complaints Committee:
Led by a woman.
50% or more of the members are women.
Bringing in an outsider from the legal or non-profit sectors to guarantee objectivity.
The Committee would serve as an investigative body with civil court-like authority.
The complaints were directed to be handled in a timely manner and with confidentiality.
4. Disciplinary Measures:
Based on the Committee’s recommendations, the employer had to implement the proper disciplinary measures.
Civil or criminal liability may follow noncompliance with the Committee’s recommendations.
5. Criminal Cases:
Employers must take the proper action by filing a complaint with the relevant authority in cases where such behavior qualifies as a specific offense under the Indian Penal Code or any other law.
6. Employee Initiative:
Employees should be encouraged to report sexual harassment without worrying about reprisals.
7. Harassment by Third Parties:
Additionally, employers were held accountable for stopping harassment from outside parties like clients or customers.
VII. The Vishaka Judgment’s Importance for Judicial Activism and Lawmaking
Judicial Activism: An excellent illustration of judicial activism is the Vishaka case, in which the Court intervened to address a lack of legislation to safeguard fundamental rights.
Acceptance of International Law: An important step in integrating international human rights standards into domestic constitutional interpretation was the Court’s reliance on CEDAW without the need for enabling domestic legislation.
Constitutional Morality and Gender Justice: The ruling emphasized the value of equality, dignity, and non discrimination in the workplace. It was among the first rulings to link gender justice to the more general principles of morality found in the constitution.
Creation of Law: Until Parliament passed legislation, these rules were regarded as de facto law and remained in effect.
POSH Act of 2013 Catalyst: As a result of the ruling, the Vishaka guidelines were expanded and formalized in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
VIII. Legal Developments Following Vishaka
Sixteen years after the Vishaka ruling, the POSH Act was passed in 2013. It expanded upon and codified the Vishaka guidelines.
The Act required:
Internal Complaints Committees (ICC) should be established in any company with ten or more workers.
Submitting yearly compliance reports.
Conciliation, investigation, and punishment provisions.
Inclusion of the unorganized sector and protection for domestic workers.
Implementation of the Act is still difficult, particularly in:
The informal sector.
Small businesses.
Rural employment.
IX. Challenges and Criticisms
Postponed Lawmaking: Despite the guidelines being established in 1997, the POSH Act was only passed in 2013, indicating the legislature’s hesitancy.
Gaps in Enforcement: There are still many organizations without adequate redressal procedures, particularly in the unorganized sector.
Compliance with Tokens (e.g., forming ICCs on paper) have been documented in numerous businesses.
Absence of Knowledge: Many women are either ignorant of their rights or afraid of reprisals if they speak out.
Social Stigma and Victim-Blaming: Continue to be significant obstacles.
The Necessity of Gender-Inclusive Legislation: Women are mainly protected by the POSH Act and the gender-specific Vishaka guidelines. In order to protect men and people of other gender identities, there is a growing push to make the law gender-neutral.
X. Summary
One of the most influential rulings in Indian constitutional jurisprudence is the Vishaka ruling. It actively used the constitutional and international legal framework to protect women in the workplace in addition to acknowledging the invisible violence of sexual harassment.
The Supreme Court created a provisional but binding legal framework by establishing the Vishaka Guidelines, demonstrating the judiciary’s transformative ability without the need for legislation. In addition to providing Bhanwari Devi with justice in a more symbolic sense, the ruling gave millions of Indian working women more power.
Vishaka is still a beacon of light today, reminding us that the law is about values like justice, equality, and dignity as much as it is about laws. Even though the POSH Act has brought about a lot of progress, awareness, training, and institutional accountability are still needed to continuously reinforce the principles established in Vishaka.
FAQS
1. What are the Guidelines of Vishaka?
In the 1997 case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court of India established a set of legally binding guidelines known as the Vishaka Guidelines. Until a formal law was passed, these rules were put in place to prevent and deal with sexual harassment of women in the workplace.
2. According to the Vishaka Guidelines, what is sexual harassment?
Any unwanted sexually determined behavior is considered sexual harassment, including:
Advances or physical contact
Request or demand sexual favors
Comments that are sexually suggestive
Pornographic display
Any additional unwanted sexually suggestive verbal, nonverbal, or physical behavior
3. Who was Bhanwari Devi, and what makes her case noteworthy?
Devi Bhanwari was gang-raped in 1992 for stopping a child marriage while working as a social worker in Rajasthan. Her case led to the PIL that produced the Vishaka Guidelines and revealed the absence of legal protection against sexual harassment in the workplace.
4. On which legal provisions was the Vishaka Judgment based?
The Supreme Court’s ruling was predicated on:
Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution guarantee equality, nondiscrimination, the right to work, and the right to a dignified life.
Article 141: Enforcing the rules in all Indian courts.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women’s principles are applied in international law (CEDAW).
5. What were the main safeguards that the Vishaka Guidelines required?
Employers had to do the following:
Create a policy that prohibits sexual harassment.
Behaviour awareness-raising initiatives
Create Complaints Committees with Women on Them
6. What impact did the Vishaka Guidelines have on Indian law?
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), which formally codified safeguards against sexual harassment in the workplace, was based on the guidelines.
7. How does the POSH Act differ from the Vishaka Guidelines?
The Vishaka Guidelines (1997) are court orders that offer temporary solutions.
The POSH Act of 2013 is a comprehensive law that includes mandatory Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs), investigations, penalties, and detailed provisions on complaints.
