Vishaka v/s State of Rajasthan (1997)

INTRODUCTION

The case of Vishaka v/s State of Rajasthan (1997) is a landmark judgment in India that primarily dealt with the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. The case arose when Bhanwari Devi a social worker in Rajasthan was gang raped while trying to prevent child marriage of a 9 month old girl in the village. Despite the severity of the crime justice was not served due to societal and institutional biases. Despite the effort she made to stop the child marriage in that village she couldn’t get succeeded in preventing the marriage. In the response a group of women organization including Vishaka filed the public interest litigation in the supreme court demanding guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in work places let the foundation for loss that protect women from workplace harassment.

This case played a crucial role in addressing the lack of legal provisions for women’s protection against sexual harassment at the workplace in India. The Supreme Court of India, in this case, laid down a set of guidelines for the protection of women from sexual harassment at the workplace, which eventually led to the creation of specific laws to address this issue.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Bhanwari Devi who worked as Sathin in Rajasthan government’s campaign against Child Marriage tried to stop a marriage of 9 month old girl which resulted in her getting gang raped by the villagers
2. The case was heard 180 times and 5 judges were changed over a year. While hearing she was laughed at and was forces to answer inappropriate questions regarding the incident.
3. Court at first refused the bail but later acquitted them. The reason given by the court were, Inter-Caste group of Men cannot participate in gang rape, 2 men were 60 years+ and that it is not possible that the rape can happen in front of her husband.
4.  Looking at the injustice many NGOs including VISHAKHA filed a PIL in Supreme Court citing since Bhanwari Devi was working for government when the incident occurred and India doesn’t have adequate laws for sexual harassment.
5. The case was file due to the absence of a specific law to deal with sexual harassment at workplace at the time. 
6. The case referred to the convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to which India is a signatory.
7.  Supreme Court after hearing the facts issued ‘Vishakha Guidelines’ which later became the basis of POSH Act.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the lack of legal provisions for dealing with sexual harassment at the workplace violates the constitutional rights of women under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)?
2. Whether the state has an obligation to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and provide protection to women from such harassment?
3. Whether any measures, guidelines, or legal framework should be established to address this issue effectively?

ARGUMENT OF PLAINTIFF

Vishaka and Others:

1. The petitioners argued that there were no specific laws in India to address sexual harassment at the workplace, leaving women vulnerable to abuse.
2. They contended that the lack of such laws violated the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. The petitioners requested the Supreme Court to lay down guidelines and norms to prevent and address sexual harassment at the workplace until the legislature could enact a law on the matter.
4. The state’s failure to protect women from harassment was highlighted as a violation of constitutional and international obligation.
5. India’s commitment to CEDAW obligates the country to take measures eliminate workplace harassment and promote gender equality.

ARGUMENT OF DEFENDENT

State of Rajasthan:

1. The state did not deny the incident but argued that the existing laws were adequate for dealing with the issue of sexual harassment.
2. The government suggested that any further intervention by the court was unnecessary as the issue could be addressed by the legislature.
3. The state also pointed out that the law on sexual harassment had not yet been framed and that it was the responsibility of the legislative body to enact such laws.
4. The state emphasized the lack of evidence in Bhanwari Devi’s case due to which the accused were acquitted. 
5. The state also argued that the employer should be primarily responsible for their own safety at the workplace and should address grievances.

JUDGEMENT

1. The Supreme Court of India, in a historic judgment, held that sexual harassment at the workplace was a violation of women’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
2. The Court ruled that the state had an obligation to prevent sexual harassment and to ensure a safe working environment for women.
3. The Court laid down detailed guidelines in the absence of a specific law, which came to be known as the Vishaka Guidelines.
   
4. These guidelines included the following:
         – A formal mechanism should be set up in workplaces to deal with complaints of sexual harassment.
         – Employees, especially women, should be made aware of the legal provisions related to sexual harassment.
         – The employer must take appropriate action to prevent and address complaints of sexual harassment.
           -Sexual harassment should be regarded as a serious offense and dealt with promptly.
   
5. The Court further stated that the legislature should enact a comprehensive law on sexual harassment at the workplace, and until such a law was enacted, the Vishaka Guidelines should be followed.

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court recognizes the great implications of workplace harassment and the urgent need for preventive measures. The court’s observation included the judgment that emphasized that sexual harassment at the workplace violets women’s constitutional and fundamental right.
In the absence of specific legislation the court took an active role in creating the Vishaka guidelines to address the sensitive issue regarding sexual harassment.
The judgement outlines the duty of the employer to provide a safe place and established rules and regulations and guidelines to prevent such acts.
The court relied on international conventions like CEDAW to frame its guidelines and reinforce India’s global commitments.

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

1. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999)

Relevance: This case reinforced the Vishaka Guidelines. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of an employee for sexually harassing a female subordinate, emphasizing the right of women to a safe working environment.
Key Principle: Sexual harassment violates fundamental rights to gender equality and dignity under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.

2. Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012)

Relevance: The Supreme Court addressed the ineffective implementation of Vishaka Guidelines. It directed states and union territories to set up complaints committees and ensure compliance with the guidelines in workplaces.
Key Principle: Mandated the periodic review of the implementation of workplace safety mechanisms.

3. Dr. Punita K. Sodhi v. Union of India (2010)

Relevance: The Delhi High Court upheld the Vishaka Guidelines, emphasizing the role of the complaints committee in dealing with workplace harassment cases fairly and effectively.
Key Principle: The importance of impartial investigation and confidentiality in handling sexual harassment complaints.

4. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995)

Relevance: Though predating the Vishaka case, this judgment highlighted workplace harassment and the misuse of authority by public officials.
Key Principle: Demonstrated the need for stricter laws to address workplace harassment.

CONCLUSION

The Vishaka v. The state of Rajasthan case was a monumental step in ensuring women’s safety at the workplace. By laying down the Vishaka Guidelines, the Supreme Court provided immediate legal safeguards against sexual harassment in the workplace, recognizing it as a violation of women’s constitutional rights. This case ultimately led to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, which institutionalized the legal framework for preventing sexual harassment at the workplace. The judgment marked a critical turning point in the legal protection of women’s rights in India.
The case underscores the judiciary’s role in bridging the legislative gap and ensuring justice for marginalized groups. The Vishaka guidelines paved the way for the stronger legal protections for women and emphasize the collective responsibility of society as well to uphold the values of equality, dignity and respect in all spheres of life.

FAQ’s

1. What is the Vishaka Guidelines case?

The Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) case is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that addressed the issue of sexual harassment of women at the workplace. It laid down guidelines to prevent, prohibit, and redress workplace harassment, setting a precedent for future laws.

2. What are the Vishaka Guidelines?

The Vishaka Guidelines are a set of directives issued by the Supreme Court to prevent and address sexual harassment at the workplace. Key provisions include:

• Mandatory formation of a Complaints Committee in workplaces.
• The committee should be headed by a woman and have at least one external member from a non-governmental organization (NGO).
• Maintenance of confidentiality in proceedings.
• Regular awareness programs and sensitization of employees about workplace harassment.

3. How is the Vishaka judgment linked to international conventions?

The judgment referenced the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which India ratified in 1993. The Court emphasized India’s obligation to ensure gender equality and a safe working environment as per international commitments.

4. What was the Supreme Court’s directive for workplaces?

The Court directed all workplaces (public and private) to:

• Establish an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).
• Formulate policies to prevent workplace harassment.
• Ensure that employees are aware of their rights.
• Take strict action against perpetrators and provide protection to complainants.

5. Was any legislation introduced after the Vishaka judgment?

Yes, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted to codify the Vishaka Guidelines into law. This act provides a legal framework for addressing workplace harassment in both organized and unorganized sectors.

6. Can men file complaints under the Vishaka Guidelines?

The Vishaka Guidelines specifically address the harassment of women at the workplace. However, many organizations have extended similar provisions to protect all employees, regardless of gender, under internal policies.

7. What was the impact of the Vishaka Guidelines?

The Vishaka Guidelines were a turning point in ensuring safer workplaces for women in India. They:

• Increased awareness about workplace harassment.
• Encouraged women to report harassment cases.
• Pressured employers to create mechanisms for prevention and redressal.
• Paved the way for robust legal protections through the 2013 Act.

8. What is considered sexual harassment under the Vishaka Guidelines?

Sexual harassment includes any unwelcome behavior, such as:

• Physical contact and advances.
• Demand or request for sexual favors.
• Sexually colored remarks.
• Showing pornography.
• Any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.

9. What should a complainant do if the employer does not follow the Vishaka Guidelines?

If an employer fails to follow the Vishaka Guidelines:

• The complainant can approach the State Women’s Commission or National Commission for Women (NCW).
• File a case in the court for violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
• Seek assistance from NGOs or legal aid organizations.

REFERENCE

1. legalbites.in 
2. indiankanoon.org  
3. legallore.info

This article is written by Sofiya Habeeba student of BA.LLB 3rd year, Sultan ul Uloom College of law; Intern at Lawful Legal.