Author: Aneena Jose, Mar Gregorios College Of Law , Thiruvananthapuram
INTRODUCTION
The judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)1 plays a crucial role in Indian constitutional history. At a time when sexual harassment at the workplace was dismissed as a social inconvenience rather than a legal wrong, the Court recognised it is a violation of fundamental rights. In doing so, the judiciary filled a dangerous legislative vacuum and gave constitutional voice to millions of working women across the country.
The significance of Vishaka lies not merely in the guidelines it laid down, but in the message it conveyed that dignity, equality, and safety at the workplace are not privileges granted by employers, but rights guaranteed by the Constitution. By reading gender justice into Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21, and by drawing strength from international human rights law, the Supreme Court redefined the scope of constitutional protection for women in India.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Background of the Case
The case was brought before the Supreme Court through a public interest litigation under Article 32, filed by Vishaka, a non-governmental organisation, along with several women’s rights groups. The petition seek justice for the legal safeguards against sexual harassment at workplaces.
Facts of the Case
Bhanwari Devi, a social worker employed under the Rajasthan government’s Women’s Development Programme. In 1992, while performing her official duty of preventing a child marriage, Bhanwari Devi was gang raped by male members from
1 Vishaka & Ors v. State of Rajasthan , (1997)6 SCC 241
the family of the child whose marriage she tried to prevent. The local police refused to file her complaint that she was raped.
Issues Before the Court
Whether sexual harassment at the workplace amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.
Whether the judiciary has the power to frame enforceable guidelines in the absence of legislation.
Whether international conventions can be relied upon in constitutional interpretation.
What obligations employers have in ensuring a safe working environment for women.
Legislative Impact
Judicial Law-Making in the Absence of Statute
Acknowledging the absence of any specific domestic law addressing workplace sexual harassment, the Supreme Court adopted an innovative approach. Exercising its authority under Articles 322 and 1413 the Court framed binding guidelines that would operate as law until Parliament enacted suitable legislation.
This was not judicial overreach, but judicial responsibility. The Court made it clear that fundamental rights cannot remain theoretical merely because the legislature has not acted.
The Vishaka Guidelines
The Honourable Supreme Court provided a comprehensive definition of sexual harassment, covering both physical and non-physical conduct of a sexual nature, including unwelcome advances, sexually coloured remarks, and any behaviour that creates a hostile work environment.
2 Article 31 of Indian Constitution
3 Article 141 of Indian Constitution
The guidelines included:
A clear duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment
Establishment of complaints committees headed by women
Inclusion of external members to ensure impartiality
Disciplinary action against offenders .
Awareness and preventive measures at workplaces
Over fifteen years later, the Vishaka Guidelines functioned as the primary legal framework governing workplace harassment. Their principles were eventually codified as Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, by the parliament of india which stands as a direct legislative of the judgment.
Critical Analysis of the Case
Judicial Activism or Constitutional Necessity?
One of the most debated aspects of Vishaka is the Court’s decision to frame guidelines
,a function traditionally reserved for the legislature. Critics argue that this blurred the separation of powers. However, such criticism overlooks the constitutional context in which the judgment was delivered.
The Court had previously held in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)4 that where fundamental rights are violated, the judiciary cannot remain a silent spectator. Vishaka follows this line of reasoning by prioritising rights over rigid institutional boundaries.
4 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)3SCC 161
Reinforcing Dignity Under Article 21
The judgment firmly establishes that sexual harassment is not a minor workplace grievance but a direct assault on human dignity and violation article 14,15,19(1)(g),21 in Indian Constitution. In Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981)5, the Court had held that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity. Vishaka builds upon this principle by recognising dignity as inseparable from employment and professional life.
5 Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator,Union Territory of Delhi (1981)1 SCC 608.
CONCLUSION
The judgment in Vishaka v. The state of Rajasthan stands as a powerful reminder that the Constitution is not a static document but a living instrument capable of responding to social injustice. By recognising sexual harassment as a constitutional violation, the Supreme Court shifted the conversation from morality to legality and accountability.
Vishaka is not merely remembered for the guidelines it introduced, but for the constitutional courage it displayed. It reaffirmed that where dignity is threatened and silence prevails, the judiciary must step in to uphold constitutional promises. Even today, Vishaka continues to shape gender justice jurisprudence and remains a cornerstone in the struggle for safe and equal workplaces in India.
FAQS
Q1. Why is the Vishaka case so important in Indian law?
Because it was the first judgment to explicitly recognise workplace sexual harassment as a violation of fundamental rights.
Q2. Which fundamental rights were violated in this case?
Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 19(1)(g) (right to trade and profession), and 21 (right to life and dignity).
Q3. What international law influenced the judgment?
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Q4. Are the Vishaka Guidelines still applicable?
They have been replaced by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act,(Prevention,Prohibtion,Redressal) 2013,
Q5. What is the lasting impact of Vishaka?
It laid the constitutional foundation for gender-sensitive workplace laws in India.
