Author: P. Naga Lasya Sri, Christ Academy Institute of Law
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/naga-lasya-1ba581347?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app
TO THE POINT
The1997 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan choice changed India’s legitimate system on reacting to work environment sexual badgering. The Incomparable Court filled a authoritative hole by setting up authoritative rules (Vishaka rules) beneath Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Structure in reaction to the pack assault of social specialist Bhanwari Devi. These rules, which were eventually consolidated into the Sexual Badgering of Ladies at Working environment Act of 2013, required boss duty, grievance redressal methods, and preventive measures.
ABSTRACT
When Bhanwari Devi, a Rajasthani government official who contradicted child marriage, was gang-raped in 1992, the Vishaka case started. After her aggressors were found not blameworthy, women’s rights organizations recorded a Open Intrigued Case (PIL) to highlight the nonattendance of directions against work environment badgering. The Incomparable Court collaborated with the Tradition on the Rights and protected rights to make the Vishaka Rules in arrange to address this authoritative hole. These rules include:
inappropriate verbal or physical conduct, sexist comments, and requests for a quid master quo are all considered shapes of sexual badgering.
Institutionalized Redressal: Inside Complaints Committees (ICCs) are required to handle grievances. Preventive System: Required mindfulness campaigns, casualty security, and boss liability.
Until the 2013 Act formalized them, these rules worked as law, revolutionizing work environment security for millions of women.
USEOF LEGITIMATE JARGON
Under Article 32, a open intrigued claim (PIL) is recorded to secure essential rights from efficient gender-based savagery.
The Vishaka Rules are court orders that characterize sexual badgering and regulation securities whereas joining the Tradition on the Disposal of All Shapes of Segregation Against Ladies (CEDAW) into nearby law.
Article 21 (right to nobility), Article 14 (balance), Article 15 (non-discrimination), and Article 19(1)(g) (right to work) were all recognized to be abused by sexual badgering. Strict Obligation: Notwithstanding of coordinate association in badgering, managers are responsible for keeping up secure workplaces.
THE PROOF
Citation: (1997) 6 SCC 241.
Court: Incomparable Court of India.
Bench: CJI J.S. Verma, Judges Sujata V. Manohar and B.N. Kirpal.
Legal Standards Applied:
Article 32: Extended PIL scope to address systemic rights violations.
International Law Integration: CEDAW commitments got to be enforceable in India.
Employer Obligation: Educate must avoid badgering or confront lawful consequences.
CASE LAWS
1. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997): Established India’s first legal framework against workplace harassment.
2. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999): Upheld dismissal of an officer for harassment, reinforcing employer accountability under Vishaka.
3. Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012): Directed states to implement Vishaka Guidelines effectively, ensuring ICCs in all institutions.
CONCLUSION
A prime case of legal activism to cover administrative crevices is the Vishaka administering. Ladies were given the specialist to request security and nobility by displaying badgering as a protected infringement. Indeed, in spite of the fact that these standards were formalized by the 2013 Act, issues counting destitute authorization and underreporting still exist. The case serves as a worldwide show for utilizing universal law to protect underprivileged populaces and emphasizes the judiciary’s part in advancing sex equality.
FAQS
1. What triggered the Vishaka case?
Bhanwari Devi’s gang rape in 1992, stemming from her efforts to prevent child marriage, exposed India’s lack of workplace harassment laws.
2. How did Vishaka Guidelines define sexual harassment?
As unwelcome physical/verbal conduct, demand for sexual favors, or creating a hostile work environment.
3. Were Bhanwari Devi’s attackers convicted?
No. The trial court acquitted them, citing caste-based biases and lack of evidence.
4. What is the difference between Vishaka Guidelines and the 2013 Act?
The Act expanded definitions, mandated ICCs for all workplaces (including informal sectors), and introduced penalties for non-compliance.
5. Do Vishaka Guidelines still apply today?
They were replaced by the 2013 Act but remain foundational for interpreting workplace harassment laws.
