Author: Mudit Bhati, Faculty of Law, BHU
Vishaka Vs State of Rajasthan is a very important and a well-known case in Indian legal history. This case addressed the issue of sexual harassment of women in the workplace and laid down some guidelines to prevent and address such harassment. This case drew significant attention to gender justice and the protection of women’s rights.
Case Background
Bhanwari Devi was a social worker employed by the Rajasthan government under the Women’s Development Program and she was engaged in raising awareness against child marriage, a deeply rooted social evil custom in rural parts of India. In 1992, Bhanwari Devi attempted to stop the child marriage of a girl in the family of a one Ramakant Gujjar of a village near Jaipur. Despite being a visit by the district police authorities, the marriage was solemnized. Due to her intervention, she met with strong resistance from the Gujjar community. In revenge, five men from the Gujjar community gang-raped her in front of her husband and also brutally assaulted her husband. Her case was subjected to prolonged delays, insensitivity from law enforcement agencies, and ultimately a failure of justice. A trail court acquitted all the accused in 1995, citing reasons that reflected deep-seated patriarchal biases. This incident highlighted the systemic failure to provide justice to victims of sexual offence and underscored the urgent need for strong mechanisms to address workplace harassment and gender-based violence.
In response to this injustice, Bhanwari Devi and a group of women’s rights organizations, collectively known as ‘Vishaka’, together filed a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) in the Supreme Court of India. The PIL sought enforcement of fundamental rights under article 14(Right to equality), Article 15(Prohibition of discrimination), Article 19(1)(g) (Right to profession), and Article 21(Right to life and personal liberty) of the constitution of India.
The key issues raised were:
a) The absence of legislation to prevent sexual harassment at workplaces.
b) Need to protect women’s dignity and equality in the workplace.
Arguments by Petitioners were:
(1) The petitioners argued that sexual harassment at workplaces violated women’s rights to equality, life, and freedom to practice any profession.
(2) India as a signatory to the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), was obligated to implement measures to prevent discrimination and sexual harassment.
(3) In absence of domestic legislation, the judiciary should step in to protect women’s rights and provide remedies for workplace harassment.
Judgement
The hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgement on August 13, 1997. Bench led by the then- Chief Justice J.S. Verma, Justice Sujata V. Manohar, and Justice B.N. Kirpal, acknowledged the lack of statutory law governing sexual harassment and laid down guidelines for its prevention and redressal.
Observations:
1. The Supreme Court emphasized that sexual harassment violates women’s rights to equality, non-discrimination, and safe working conditions, as enshrined in articles 14, 15, and 21.
2. The Supreme Court referred to CEDAW and recognized India’s commitment to ensuring equality and dignity for women. The judgement asserted that international conventions could guide domestic jurisprudence in the absence of specific laws.
3. The Supreme Court adopted an activist approach to fill the legislative void, framing binding guidelines to ensure justice for victims of workplace harassment.
Vishaka Guidelines
The Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment at workplaces. Key provisions include:
1. It shall be the duty of the employer or other responsible persons in the workplace to prevent the commission of acts of sexual harassment and provide procedures for resolution, settlement or prosecution of such acts.
2. Sexual harassment includes:
a) Physical Contact and advances
b) Demand or request for sexual favors
c) Sexually coloured remarks
d) Showing pornography
e) Any other unwelcome physical verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.
3. All employers, whether in public or private sector, should take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment.
4. If any offence amounts to a specific offence under IPC or any other law, employer has to initiate complaint.
5. Must ensure that victims or witnesses are not victimized or discriminated.
6. An appropriate complaint mechanism should be created in organization.
7. A complaints committee headed by a woman and at least 50 percent women should be set up.
8. Employees should be allowed to raise issues of sexual harassment at workers’ meeting.
9. Awareness generation of the rights of female employees.
Impact of the Judgement
1. This case spurred nationwide awareness about workplace harassment and encouraged victims to report misconduct.
2. The judgement established the judiciary’s proactive role in addressing social issues and interpreting constitutional rights expansively.
3. Organizations were compelled to adopt policies and procedures to ensure a safe working environment for women.
4. The Vishaka guidelines served as the de facto law for addressing workplace harassment until Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, popularly known as POSH Act.
POSH ACT, 2013
● This act gives definition of sexual harassment at the workplace and creates a mechanism for redressal of complaints and protects against false or malicious charges.
● This act also includes domestic workers in it.
● Every employer is required to constitute an ICC (integral complaints committee) at each office or branch with 10 or more employees.
● The complaints committee possesses the power equivalent to civil courts and are required to provide for conciliation before initiating an inquiry if requested by the complainant.
● Penalties have been prescribed for employees for non-compliance with the provisions of the act.
● The state government will inform the District Officer in each district, who will form a Local Complaints Committee (LCC) to ensure that women in the unorganized sector or small establishments can work in an environment free of sexual harassment.
Criticism and limitations of Vishaka judgement
● Implementation Challenges: Many organizations, especially in the unorganized sector, failed to comply with the guidelines due to lack of awareness or resources.
● Ambiguity: The absence of a statutory framework led to inconsistent implementation and interpretation of the guidelines.
● Delayed Legislation: It took over 15 years after the judgement for the legislature to enact a specific law addressing workplace harassment.
Significance of this judgement
The Vishaka case remains a cornerstone in India’s legal history for gender justice. It demonstrated the judiciary’s commitment in protecting fundamental rights and its willingness to step in where the legislature failed to act. By framing guidelines rooted in constitutional and international principles, the judgement advanced the cause of women’s rights in India.
Conclusion
The Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan judgment was a bold and progressive step in ensuring a safe and equitable workplace for women. While the subsequent enactment of the 2013 act addressed many gaps, the case continues to inspire discussions on gender justice, workplace safety, and judicial activism. As a landmark judgment, it understood the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional values and promoting societal change.
FAQS
1. What is the Vishaka case about?
The Vishaka case arose from a PIL filed by a group of women’s rights organizations in response to the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan. The case highlighted the lack of legal mechanisms to address sexual harassment of women at workplaces in India.
2. How did the Supreme Court justify issuing the guidelines?
The court used its powers under article 32 of the constitution and referred to international conventions like the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women), to which India is a signatory, to justify issuing guidelines.
3. How does the 2013 Act differ from the Vishaka Guidelines?
While the Vishaka Guidelines were judicial directives, the 2013 Act is a comprehensive legislation that:
● Clearly defines processes for filing and resolving complaints.
● Extends, protection to all women workers, including domestic workers.
● Imposes penalties for non-compliance by employers.
