Author: Sneha Kumari, a student at Amity Law School, Amity University Patna
To the point
For many years, Indian law did not have specific provisions to tackle the issue of sexual harassment faced by women in the workplace. This gap in legislation left women workers exposed to exploitation, discrimination, and abuse, without any formal system for protection or recourse. The turning point came in 1997 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, which directly addressed this significant legal void.
The case arose following the violent gangrape of Bhanwari Devi, a grassroots worker from Rajasthan, who was assaulted because she intervened to prevent a child marriage. Her attack, coupled with the State’s failure to provide her protection or justice, revealed the widespread lack of safeguards for women working in both formal and informal sectors.
In the absence of any specific legislation, the Supreme Court exercised its constitutional authority under Article 32 and interpreted fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 19(1)(g) and Art.21. The Court held that sexual harassment at the workplace violates these fundamental rights.
The Court further relied on international treaties like CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) and formulated the Vishaka Guidelines—a set of mandatory rules requiring employers to prevent and address sexual harassment. These guidelines effectively functioned as the law on this matter until the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Consequently, the Vishaka judgment is a landmark ruling in India’s constitutional history, illustrating the judiciary’s vital role in bridging legislative gaps to protect women’s rights and promote gender justice in the workplace.
Abstract
The Supreme Court’s 1997 verdict in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan is a landmark in India’s legal efforts to address sexual harassment and gender-based violence at the workplace. Triggered by the brutal assault on Bhanwari Devi and the absence of specific laws protecting women at work, the Court stepped in with judicial innovation by issuing binding guidelines to prevent and redress workplace harassment.
These guidelines were rooted in constitutional protections under Articles 14 (equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 19(1)(g) (right to work), and 21 (right to life and dignity), and aligned with India’s obligations under international treaties such as CEDAW. The judgment exemplified how the judiciary can fill legislative voids to safeguard fundamental rights.
This article explores the Court’s rationale in Vishaka, critiques the earlier absence of legal frameworks, and discusses how this ruling paved the way for a safer, rights-based working environment for women. It also reviews the impact of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, emphasizing the ongoing need for reforms to uphold dignity and equality for all women in employment.
Use of Legal Jagron
The Vishaka judgment stands as a significant example of judicial activism, where the Supreme Court addressed a crucial legislative gap by establishing protections for women against workplace sexual harassment in the absence of specific laws on the matter. Before Vishaka, Indian law suffered from a jurisprudential lacuna, lacking explicit statutory provisions addressing sexual harassment as a distinct violation of women’s fundamental rights. This created a systemic failure to uphold the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Articles 14 (right to equality), 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Invoking its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 32, the Supreme Court interpreted these fundamental rights expansively, asserting that sexual harassment constitutes a direct infringement on the right to gender equality, non-discrimination, occupational liberty, and dignity. The Court’s approach reflects principles of transformative constitutionalism, wherein the Constitution is read as a living document that must respond dynamically to evolving social realities and systemic inequalities faced by marginalized groups, including women at the workplace.
The Court further anchored its reasoning in international human rights law, particularly citing obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In doing so, the judgment upheld the principle of aligning domestic constitutional provisions with international obligations, thereby strengthening the authoritative value of the Vishaka Guidelines.
These guidelines functioned as interim binding directives, obligating employers and state entities to adopt preventive, punitive, and remedial mechanisms against sexual harassment, thereby institutionalizing a framework of due diligence and state accountability under Article 21. The judgment emphasized the necessity of a safe and dignified working environment as an integral component of the right to life, with the state bearing positive obligations to ensure protection and redressal.
Despite the transformative potential of the judgment, its enforceability was contingent on voluntary compliance and lacked the coercive force of formal legislation, exposing the limits of judicial overreach in the absence of legislative endorsement. This gap underscored the urgency for a statutory regime that could codify, standardize, and expand the protections envisaged by Vishaka, culminating in the enactment of the legislation enacted in 2013 aimed at preventing, prohibiting, and providing remedies for sexual harassment of women in work environments.
In essence, the Vishaka case highlights the interplay between constitutional interpretation, international law, and judicial innovation in addressing gender-based violence. It illustrates how judicial pronouncements can drive social change, yet also reveal the necessity for legislative action to consolidate rights within a robust legal framework. The case remains a critical reference point in discussions on gender justice, workplace rights, and state responsibility in India.
The Proof
The case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan originated from a disturbing incident in 1992 involving Bhanwari Devi, a grassroots social worker (saathin) working under the Women’s Development Programme in Rajasthan. Bhanwari Devi was subjected to a brutal gangrape by a group of upper-caste men as retaliation for her efforts to prevent a child marriage within the community. Despite clear evidence and widespread public condemnation, the criminal justice system failed to provide her with justice, revealing significant institutional inadequacies in protecting women, especially those vulnerable to violence and harassment in both formal and informal workplaces. This failure highlighted a critical absence of legal safeguards addressing sexual harassment, an issue largely ignored by existing statutes at the time.
Recognizing this significant legal gap, several women’s rights groups, collectively known as Vishaka, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Their aim was to urge the Court to step in and address the absence of specific laws by creating guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The case brought forward critical legal issues, including whether the lack of a dedicated statute could excuse the state’s failure to protect women from sexual harassment at work, whether such harassment violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality before the law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination based on sex), 19(1)(g) (freedom to carry out any profession), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and whether international human rights treaties could be used to interpret and reinforce domestic constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the absence of any codified law on workplace sexual harassment and, exercising its constitutional authority under Article 32, embarked on a path of judicial activism. The Court drew upon the principles enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), an international treaty to which India is a party, to develop interim guidelines that would govern workplace conduct until suitable legislation was enacted. These directives, known as the Vishaka Guidelines, provided a comprehensive framework by defining what constitutes sexual harassment and outlining the responsibilities of employers to prevent and address such misconduct. They mandated the creation of Complaints Committees within workplaces to receive and address grievances, emphasized the need for awareness and sensitization programs, and underscored the importance of confidentiality and timely resolution of complaints.
Until the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act in 2013, the Vishaka Guidelines served as the primary legal instrument to combat sexual harassment in workplaces across India. The judgment thus marked a transformative moment, bridging the gap between constitutional rights and practical protections for working women, while laying the groundwork for subsequent statutory reforms aimed at ensuring safer and more equitable workplaces.
Case Laws
Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997) AIR SC 3011
This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court represented a significant advancement in addressing the prevalent issue of sexual harassment against women in workplaces across India. The Court recognized the absence of specific legislation on this subject and stepped in to fill the legislative gap by laying down the Vishaka Guidelines. These guidelines defined sexual harassment, imposed a duty on employers to create a safe working environment, mandated the formation of Complaints Committees, and emphasized confidentiality, awareness, and timely redressal of complaints. The judgment was grounded in the interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution and incorporated international conventions like CEDAW. This case set a precedent for judicial activism, ensuring the protection of women’s fundamental rights when statutory protections were lacking.
Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC 150
In this case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the continuing relevance and importance of the Vishaka Guidelines, highlighting the failure of the government to enact specific legislation for the protection of women against workplace sexual harassment. The Court emphasized the necessity of implementing these guidelines strictly and directed the central and state governments to expedite the enactment of a comprehensive law. This case reinforced the obligation of employers to provide a harassment-free environment and maintain the spirit of the Vishaka ruling until statutory enactments were in place.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1
Though primarily a case concerning the practice of Triple Talaq, the Supreme Court in this judgment also underscored the broader constitutional mandate to protect women’s dignity and equality under Articles 14 and 21. The judgment reiterated that laws and practices which undermine women’s fundamental rights, including their right to live with dignity and security, must be scrutinized and reformed. This principle closely aligns with the values upheld in Vishaka, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding women’s rights.
The law enacted in 2013 aimed at preventing, prohibiting, and providing remedies for sexual harassment against women in the workplace.
Although not a court case, this legislation was a direct outcome of the Vishaka judgment. The Act codified the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, providing a statutory framework for the prevention, prohibition, and redressal of sexual harassment complaints at workplaces across India. It institutionalized the formation of Internal Complaints Committees and mandated procedures to address grievances, thereby translating the Vishaka guidelines into binding law.
Conclusion
The decision in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan represents a turning point in India’s journey toward achieving gender equality and justice. At a time when there was no specific legislation addressing workplace sexual harassment, the Supreme Court rose to the occasion and performed its constitutional duty by laying down the Vishaka Guidelines. This intervention by the judiciary was not only timely but essential to fill the legal vacuum that had left countless working women vulnerable to harassment and without adequate redressal mechanisms.
By examining constitutional provisions such as Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21—which ensure equality, protection from discrimination, the right to practice any profession, and the right to live with dignity—the Court acknowledged that sexual harassment extends beyond an individual complaint and constitutes a breach of fundamental rights. The Court’s reliance on international frameworks, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), highlighted India’s dedication to international human rights obligations and supported a more progressive reading of constitutional guarantees.
The judgment also served as a powerful example of how the judiciary can adopt a proactive and transformative approach to uphold rights in the absence of legislative action. For over a decade and a half, the Vishaka Guidelines functioned as the sole authoritative mechanism to deal with workplace harassment, shaping institutional behavior and policies. This development eventually culminated in the passing of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which gave legal recognition to the guidelines earlier articulated by the Court.
However, while the Vishaka case laid the foundation for legal reform, implementation remains a critical challenge. Many workplaces still fail to comply with the requirements of the 2013 Act, and awareness among employees—especially in informal and unorganized sectors—remains low. Moreover, systemic issues such as societal stigma, underreporting, and power imbalances continue to undermine the objectives of both the judgment and the legislation that followed.
Thus, while the Vishaka ruling was transformative in its time, the journey toward ensuring safe, equitable, and respectful workplaces for all women in India is far from over. There is an urgent need for stronger institutional accountability, widespread awareness, and a cultural shift that prioritizes respect, dignity, and equality in the world of work. Courts, lawmakers, employers, and civil society must work in tandem to ensure that the spirit of Vishaka is not only preserved but continually advanced in practice.
FAQS
Does the Vishaka judgment continue to hold significance following the implementation of the 2013 Act?
Yes. While the 2013 Act has now codified protections against sexual harassment at the workplace, the Vishaka judgment remains foundational. It laid the legal and moral groundwork for the Act, and its principles continue to inform judicial interpretation and policy implementation.
What constitutional rights did the Vishaka judgment rely upon?
The Supreme Court relied on Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution. These provisions guarantee the right to equality, prohibit gender-based discrimination, protect the freedom to choose an occupation, and ensure the right to live with dignity.
What is the significance of the 2013 Sexual Harassment Act?
The 2013 Act gave statutory force to the principles outlined in the Vishaka Guidelines. It mandates the formation of Internal Complaints Committees (ICC) in workplaces, provides timelines for complaint resolution, and lays down penalties for non-compliance. It applies to all workplaces, including the private sector, public sector, and unorganized sectors.
Are men or LGBTQ+ individuals covered under this Act?
The 2013 law specifically protects women from sexual harassment at the workplace. However, there have been growing calls for gender-neutral legislation to protect all individuals, including men and members of the LGBTQ+ community, from workplace harassment.
What can an employee do if their workplace does not follow the law?
If a workplace does not implement the required mechanisms under the 2013 Act (such as an Internal Complaints Committee), the employee can file a complaint with the Local Complaints Committee established by the district authorities. Legal remedies are also available through labor courts or human rights commissions.
