Author: Ridhima Lohat (BA LLB)
College: Noida International University
To the Point:
Case Name: Vishaka & Ors .vs. State of Rajasthan
Year: 1997
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3011
Bench: 3 judge bench Chief Justice J.S. Verma, Justice Sujata V. Manohar and Justice B.N. Kirpal
Issue Raised: Do women have a fundamental right to work in a harassment-free environment?
Court Held: The Apex Court held that sexual harassment was a violation of Fundamental Rights and the Vishaka Guidelines were formulated.
The Proof:
It was the year 1992 when social worker Bhanwari Devi was brutally raped by a mob in Rajasthan after she had opposed a child marriage. Bhanwari Devi was working for the government to stop such practices but met with a severe backlash from the villagers. It was the gang who gang-raped her as revenge.
This incident highlighted the fact that women do not have legal protection against sexual harassment in the workplace.
A PIL (Public Interest Litigation) was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by several women’s rights organizations such as the Vishaka Trust, etc. The Supreme Court acknowledged that women do have a fundamental right to work safely.
Use Of Legal Jargon:
1. PILs or public interest litigation:
Petitions initiated to protect general and marginalized public interests rather than individual claims.
2. Activism by Judges:
Judges interpreting the Constitution in a broad manner so as to ensure protection of various rights.
3. Essential Rights:
Basic rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
4. Equality of Gender:
The principle that men and women should have equal opportunity and legal protection.
5. Sexual Abuse:
Unwanted verbal or physical advances that make the workplace hostile.
6. Global Agreement:
An international agreement that the Vishaka guidelines were based upon, viz. the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
Constitutional Provisions Involved:
Article 14 ( Right to Equality):
Under this article, all citizens of India are treated equally by the law, and any discrimination by employers on grounds such as gender is not allowed. Sexual harassment violates this right as it discriminates on the ground of sex.
Article 15:
This article prohibits discrimination by the state on grounds of sex, etc.
Article 19(1)(g):
This article gives every citizen the right to pursue any profession, and any law restricting such right would be void. If women are forced to work in an unsafe environment they cannot exercise this right effectively.
Article 21:
This article guarantees protection of life and personal liberty of a citizen. This was also interpreted to include right to a safe working environment.
Article 32:
Right to Constitutional Remedies under this article enabled the petitioners to directly approach the Supreme Court to enforce these rights.
Issues Before the Court:
● Whether sexual harassment of women violated their fundamental rights.
● Whether Vishaka guidelines could be issued by the Supreme Court in the absence of any law on the issue.
● Whether Indian Courts could rely on global agreements like CEDAW in the absence of domestic legislation.
Judgment Of The Supreme Court:
● In all matters, the Apex Court was in favor of women employees. The Court held as under:
● Sexual harassment of women violated Articles 14,15,19, and 21 of the Constitution.
● It was mandatory for employers to provide safe working conditions to women employees.
● The Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to formulate Vishaka guidelines with legal force.
● As far as CEDAW was concerned, it could be relied upon in the absence of national legislation.
● The judgment served as a model for judicial activism.
Vishaka Guidelines:
● The Supreme Court directed that the following steps be taken by employers to prevent sexual harassment of women employees:
● Sexual harassment must be brought to an immediate halt.
● Every organization must constitute a Complaints Committee with a woman chairperson and at least half of its members should be women. There must also be an external member from an NGO or women’s organization.
● Awareness must be created among the employees.
● All complaints are to be treated confidentially and the accused should be punished for violating the guidelines.
● Employees should be protected from being victimized for complaining.
This judgment was the law till the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 came into force.
Importance Of The he Judgment:
The verdict:
● Recognized the Right to Safety at the Workplace as a fundamental right.
● Protected women’s honor and prestige.
● Filled a lacuna in legislation.
● Achieved gender justice.
● Inspired Parliament to enact the 2013 Act.
● Reaffirmed national commitment to human rights globally as India ratified CEDAW.
Related Case Laws:
● Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra ,1999
The Supreme Court held that physical contact was not mandatory for sexual harassment, and that the Vishaka guidelines were valid.
● Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India ,2013
The court held that till the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 came fully into force, Vishaka guidelines must be strictly followed at the workplace.
● NALSA v.Union of India ,2014
Supreme Court took cognizance of discrimination against transgender people by recognizing their rights.
Critical Analysis:
The Vishaka ruling that safeguarded women from sexual harassment in 1997 is an example of a landmark judgment that has since been used as a reference by the Indian Courts. Even before any law was formulated to govern such a scenario, the Apex Court took cognizance of the violation of the right to life and liberty of women who opted to be employed.
The Court filled in a lacuna in the legislation by relying upon the CEDAW convention and interpreted the Constitution in such a way to promote gender justice. However, it is unfortunate that even today there is no complete implementation of measures to prevent harassment by employers. Women still choose to turn a blind eye due to social stigma, or job insecurity, or the fear of being victimized.
Thus even though the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013 amended various laws to protect Indian women, social awareness needs to be raised to ensure implementation.
Conclusion:
The Vishaka case judgment that recognized the right to a safe working environment as a fundamental right was a major step in the direction of gender justice. This is also evident from the fact that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 was passed as a result of the Apex Court’s reliance on the Vishaka guidelines. This judgment therefore stands out to be a landmark ruling as far as Indian labor and constitutional law is concerned.
FAQs:
Q1. Why is the Vishaka case considered a landmark judgment?
Because it was the first judgment to have laid down a framework for curbing sexual harassment at the workplace in the absence of any law.
Q2. Why did the Supreme Court invoke CEDAW?
Because the Apex Court wanted to safeguard the rights of Indian women after realizing that the existing law did not allow them to work in a safe environment.
