Author: Heemani Amarsingh Rajput ,
BVDU New law college, Pune.
To the Point
Vishaka’s judgment marked a fundamental moment in Indian legal history, establishing guidelines enforceable to protect women from sexual harassment in workplaces, long before the Indian Parliament promulgated a dedicated law. Started as a public interest litigation (PIL) in response to the tragic gangrape of a rural social worker, Bhanwari Devi, this case led to the Supreme Court to invoke creatively constitutional guarantees, international conventions and judicial precedents to frame the guidelines of Vishaka, a temporary but binding legal framework that the working women followed through the sectors.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Vishaka case is an exemplary instance of judicial legislation under article 32 of the Constitution. The petition was presented as a dispute of public interest (PIL) under the written jurisdiction of the court to protect fundamental rights, particularly under articles 14 (equality before the law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination) and 21 (right to life and dignity). The court used norms of international law, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), to fill the legislative gaps, trusting in the doctrine of harmonious construction. Vishaka guidelines were framed in the binding force of article 141, till adequate legislation was brought.
The Proof
The Incident That Shook India
In 1992, Bhanwari Devi, a rural base worker of the Women’s Development Project (WDP) of the Rajasthan government, tried to stop a child marriage in her town. Her speech angered the powerful superior caste men, who retaliates for the gangraping her in front of her husband. When she approached the police, she faced humiliation and apathy. The medical report was delayed, the police refused to present an initially appropriate FIR, and their complaint was received with bureaucratic indifference.
Social stigma and institutional insufficiency presented the patriarchal resistance prevalent to empowered women and the deficiencies of state machinery to address crimes against women. In response, several NGOs, including Vishaka, The Women’s and others Rehabilitation group, surpassed the Supreme Court in search of preventive measures for the protection of women in workplaces under the constitution of India and international obligations.
Abstract
This article analyzes the historical case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (Air 1997 SC 3011) and its legal, social and international implications. It evaluates how the Supreme Court, in the absence of a specific statute, framed binding guidelines to avoid sexual harassment of women in workplaces and was based on international conventions such as CEDAW to give effect to constitutional rights.
The article examines more thoroughly:
The institutional evolution of Vishaka’s guidelines to the sexual harassment of women in the workplace (prevention, prohibition and repair) of the Law of 2013, 2013,
The challenges of implementation of security in the workplace in various sector
prominent cases that reaffirm or test Vishaka’s legacy.
It also highlights recent incidents in the workplace such as the Tehelka case, the #MeToo movement in India and the A.K. Ganguly internal incident, which underlines the continuous relevance of Vishaka’s trial in the contemporary era.
Case Laws
1) Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759
The case is a memorable decision of the Supreme Court of India dealing with sexual harassment occurring in the workplace for women specially. The court confirmed the dismissal of a superior employee, A.K. Chopra, for sexually harassing an employee, Miss X. This case is significant because it reinforced the principles established in Vishakha’s judgment, emphasizing that sexual harassment violates fundamental rights and that employers have the responsibility of providing a safe work environment.
The court affirmed the decision to dismiss A.K. Chopra, emphasizing that even without physical contact, the actions that create a offensive work environment can constitute to sexual harassment.
The Court referred to international conventions such as CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women) and the Beijing Declaration, highlighting the global commitment to protect the rights and dignity of women.
2)Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194
It is an emblematic Indian legal case about sexual harassment. Rupan Deol Bajaj being an IAS officer, accused Kps Gill the then General Police Director at Punjab, of sexual abuse. The case gained significant attention in the media due to the high profile people involved and the serious nature of the accusations.
The case is notable to highlight the issue of sexual harassment in India and the legal processes involved in addressing such accusations. It also emphasized the importance of judicial supervision in the investigation processes and the need to balance the prevention of judicial overreach with the guarantee of justice.
The Supreme Court revoked the decision of the Superior Court to quash the FIR and the complaint, stating that the Judicial Judge Chief had no jurisdiction to order the police to present a charging sheet.
The Supreme Court ordered the main judicial magistrate to adopt the police report on crimes under sections 354 and 509 CPI and continue with the trial.
Prominent Incidents in India Post-Vishaka
1)Tehelka Sexual Harassment Case (2013)
2) The A.K. Ganguly Controversy (2013)
3) #MeToo Movement in India (2018–2019)
4) Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Sexual Harassment Allegations
Conclusion
Vishaka’s trial was not only an answer to a unique tragedy, but a decisive moment in constitutional feminism. It was a powerful example of the Judiciary intervened to fill the legislative vacuum and protect the dignity of women in line with constitutional morals and international obligations.
While the promulgation of women’s sexual harassment in the workplace (prevention, prohibition and repair) of the 2013 Law has formally encoded Vishaka guidelines, the implementation remains unequal. Especially in informal sectors, the concert economy, the judiciary and politics, the ICCs are completely or completely absent.
In addition, male and LGBTQ+ victims of harassment in the workplace remain unprotected, insinuating the need for neutral gender laws. In essence, while Vishaka catalyzed a transformative speech on gender justice, the trip to the safer, inclusive and worthy workplaces continues.
FAQs
Q1. What is Vishaka’s trial?
Vishaka’s trial established binding guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in workplaces, in the absence of specific legislation at that time.
Q2. Is Vishaka’s trial valid?
Although the 2013 law has largely encoded it, Vishaka’s guidelines continue to serve as a fundamental jurisprudence and are mentioned in cases where the law is silent or inapplicable.
Q3. What was the legal basis of Vishaka guidelines?
They were framed under article 32 of the Constitution to protect fundamental rights, especially articles 14, 15 and 21, and were based on India’s commitment to CEDAW.
Q4. Who can file a complaint under the 2013 law?
Any employee, either full time, part -time, temporary or even visitor, can file a complaint of sexual harassment in their workplace.
Q5. What is an ICC and is mandatory?
An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is mandatory under the 2013 Law for all organizations with more than 10 employees. He is responsible for receiving, investigating and resolving complaints of sexual harassment.
Q6. Can men or transgender people present complaints?
No, the 2013 law is specific to gender and only protects women. There is a growing demand for neutral laws to protect men and members of the LGBTQ+community.
Q7. What should be done if an organization does not have an ICC?
Employees can address the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) established by the District Administration, or file a complaint under other criminal laws such as section 354a IPC.
