Author- Ishita Setha
TO THE POINT
In the absence of any specific legislation protecting women from sexual harassment at the workplace, the Supreme Court of India stepped in decisively in the landmark case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1GG7 SC 3011). This judgment not only highlighted the vulnerability of women in professional spaces but also firmly established that gender equality and dignity are integral to fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a tragic incident involving Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, who was gang-raped while performing her duties to prevent child marriage as part of a government campaign. Her assault exposed the complete absence of protective mechanisms for women working in hostile environments, especially in rural and government-assigned roles.
Use of legal Jargon
This decision is a classic example of judicial activism, where the Supreme Court legislated in the interregnum to uphold the spirit of constitutional morality. It expanded the horizon of Article 21 to encompass protection from sexual harassment, thereby reinforcing the dynamic and evolving interpretation of fundamental rights.
The landmark judgment of Vishaka s Ors. v. State of Rajasthan s Ors., reported in AIR 1GG7 SC 3011, represents a seminal development in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. This case marked the judicial recognition of sexual harassment at the workplace as a violation of fundamental rights and filled a crucial legislative vacuum through the invocation of international conventions and judicial directives.
Factual Matrix
The litigation arose following the brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a government- appointed saathin (social worker) in Rajasthan, who faced retributive violence while discharging her official duty to prevent a child marriage under a state-sponsored program. In the absence of any specific statutory mechanism addressing workplace
sexual harassment, a group of non-governmental organizations approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, seeking enforcement of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.
The Proof
This is done in exercise of the power available under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of the fundamental rights and it is further emphasized that this would be treated as the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.”
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1GG7 SC 3011 This statement proves that:
- The Supreme Court issued the guidelines using its powers under Article 32.
- It declared the guidelines as binding law under Article 141, which means they were enforceable and had the force of law across India until legislation (POSH Act, 2013) was passed.
Abstract
The landmark judgment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1GG7 SC 3011) marked a transformative moment in Indian constitutional law by recognizing sexual harassment at the workplace as a violation of fundamental rights. Delivered in the absence of specific legislation, the Supreme Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 32 and laid down the Vishaka Guidelines, which were declared binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. Drawing upon international conventions like CEDAW, the Court expanded the scope of Articles 14, 15, 1G(1)(g), and 21 to include the right to a safe working environment. This case stands as a precedent-setting instance of judicial activism and paved the way for the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The decision continues to be a cornerstone of gender justice and the protection of women’s dignity in the professional sphere.
Case laws
- Charu Khurana v. Union of India, (2015) 1 SCC 192 • Reiterated Vishaka principles, holding that denying women opportunities in employment based on gender violates Articles 14 and 15.
- C.E.S.C. Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose, AIR 1992 SC 573 • Discussed right to health and dignity under Article 21, laying the foundation for expanding the interpretation of life and liberty.
- Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922 • Recognized rape as a violation of Article 21, reinforcing that sexual assault infringes upon the fundamental right to life and dignity.
- Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746 • Held that Article 21 includes the right to live with human dignity, a basis for interpreting workplace harassment as unconstitutional.
Cases Affirming or Applying Vishaka Guidelines
- Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 297 • Reinforced implementation of Vishaka Guidelines; directed all states and institutions to comply strictly, noting poor adherence.
Conclusion
The decision in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan stands as a watershed moment in the evolution of Indian constitutional and gender justice jurisprudence. In the absence of legislative safeguards, the Supreme Court assumed its constitutional responsibility to protect fundamental rights by laying down the Vishaka Guidelines — a rare yet necessary exercise of judicial legislation. By recognizing that sexual harassment violates Articles 14, 15, 1G(1)(g), and 21, the Court expanded the ambit of fundamental rights and set a precedent for future gender-sensitive interpretations of the Constitution. Notably, the Court’s reliance on international conventions such as CEDAW signaled India’s commitment to global human rights standards and highlighted the judiciary’s role in harmonizing domestic law with international obligations. The eventual enactment of the POSH Act, 2013 gave statutory force to the principles articulated in this judgment, making it not just a legal milestone but also a catalyst for institutional reform.
Thus, Vishaka is more than a judgment; it is a symbol of constitutional morality, progressive interpretation, and the judiciary’s proactive role in upholding the dignity and safety of women in India’s workplaces.
FAQs
1. What is the significance of the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan case?
The case marked a turning point in Indian constitutional law by recognizing workplace sexual harassment as a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21. It led to the formulation of the Vishaka Guidelines to protect women in the absence of specific legislation.
2. Who was Bhanwari Devi and how is she connected to the case?
Bhanwari Devi was a government-appointed social worker in Rajasthan who was gang-raped while preventing a child marriage. Her case highlighted the lack of protective laws for women in hostile work environments and led NGOs to approach the Supreme Court.
3. What are the Vishaka Guidelines?
The Vishaka Guidelines were a set of binding directions issued by the Supreme Court in 1997 to address sexual harassment at the workplace. They remained in force until the enactment of the POSH Act in 2013.
4. Under which constitutional provisions did the Supreme Court issue the Vishaka Guidelines?
The Court acted under Article 32 (enforcement of fundamental rights) and declared the guidelines as binding law under Article 141 (law declared by the Supreme Court is binding).
5. What international convention did the Court refer to in this judgment?
The Court referred to CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) to emphasize India’s international obligation to protect women’s rights.
