Author:Mansi Singh, City Law College
The decision in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan stands as one of the most powerful examples of the Indian Supreme Court stepping in when silence of the law threatened human dignity. Born out of a brutal and deeply unsettling incident, the case transformed private suffering into a public constitutional mandate. At a time when India had no specific legislation addressing sexual harassment at the workplace, the Court used its constitutional authority to recognize that a woman’s right to work cannot be separated from her right to dignity, safety, and equality. The judgment did more than fill a legislative gap—it reframed how the Constitution protects women in everyday professional spaces, making dignity at work a non-negotiable constitutional value.
To the Point
Vishakha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241] originated from the gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a grassroots social worker in Rajasthan, who was targeted for preventing a child marriage as part of her official duties. In the absence of any effective response from state authorities and with no specific law governing sexual harassment at the workplace, a group of women’s rights organizations filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution.
The petition asserted that sexual harassment violates multiple fundamental rights—Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (prohibition of sex-based discrimination), Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession), and Article 21 (right to life with dignity)—read together with Article 42 and the fundamental duties under Article 51A. Acknowledging a clear legislative vacuum, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Articles 32, 141, and 142 to frame binding guidelines. These guidelines defined sexual harassment, imposed duties on employers, and established a complaint redressal mechanism. Until Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the Vishakha Guidelines operated as enforceable law.
Use of Legal Jargon
The petitioners sought a writ of *mandamus* against both the Union and State Governments, arguing that their inaction violated India’s constitutional obligations and international commitments, particularly under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), ratified by India in 1993. The Court treated these international norms as interpretive tools, reinforcing domestic constitutional guarantees rather than contradicting them.
Adopting a purposive interpretation of Article 21, the Court emphasized that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity—an idea incompatible with a hostile or unsafe work environment. Sexual harassment was recognized as ipso facto discriminatory, offending Article 14’s equality principle and Article 15’s explicit bar on sex-based discrimination. The right to practice one’s profession under Article 19(1)(g), the Court noted, becomes illusory if women are forced to choose between employment and personal safety.
The Court’s reliance on epistolary jurisdiction and Public Interest Litigation principles expanded locus standi, allowing civil society organizations to represent victims who lacked the social or economic power to seek justice themselves. Employers were made vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and failure to prevent harassment was treated as a breach of constitutional duty. Through Article 142, the Court transformed these norms into binding guidelines—effectively judicial legislation—declared as “law” under Article 141 until replaced by statutory enactment.
The Proof
Factual Matrix:
Bhanwari Devi worked as a Saathin (village-level worker) under Rajasthan’s Women’s Development Programme. On May 5, 1992, she attempted to stop the marriage of a one-year-old girl, acting in furtherance of state policy against child marriage. Her intervention angered influential upper-caste villagers. On September 22, 1992, she was gang-raped in front of her husband as an act of retribution. Despite medical evidence corroborating the assault, the trial court acquitted the accused, citing lack of corroboration—a reflection of outdated judicial attitudes shaped by earlier rape jurisprudence.
Procedural History:
In 1994, a coalition of women’s organizations led by Vishakha filed a PIL before the Supreme Court. The State failed to meaningfully contest the petition, and the Court appointed amicus curiae to assist in framing the issues.
Issues Framed:
1. Does sexual harassment at the workplace violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21?
2. Does the State have a constitutional obligation under Article 42 to ensure safe working conditions for women?
3. Can international conventions like CEDAW inform domestic constitutional interpretation in the absence of legislation?
Judgment (August 13, 1997):
The Court delivered a unanimous judgment recognizing sexual harassment as a violation of constitutional rights. Drawing from CEDAW and its General Recommendation No. 19, the Court defined sexual harassment broadly to include physical contact, sexual advances,
demands for sexual favors, sexually colored remarks, and any conduct creating a hostile work environment.
The Vishakha Guidelines mandated:
* Formation of Complaints Committees headed by women, with substantial female representation and involvement of third-party members such as NGOs.
* Preventive duties on employers, including awareness programs and grievance redressal.
* Initiation of criminal proceedings where conduct amounted to an offence under the IPC.
These obligations applied across both public and private sectors.
Proof of Impact:
The guidelines were cited in hundreds of judicial decisions and directly influenced the enactment of the POSH Act, 2013, demonstrating their practical and normative significance.
Abstract
The Vishakha judgment represents a defining moment in India’s Public Interest Litigation era, where the judiciary assumed an active role in advancing gender justice. By harmonizing fundamental rights with directive principles and fundamental duties, the Court imposed positive obligations on the State to prevent harm rather than merely respond to it. International law was seamlessly integrated through harmonious construction, reinforcing constitutional values without formal incorporation.
While critics argue that the Court encroached upon legislative territory, the enduring effectiveness of the guidelines underscores their necessity. *Vishakha* shifted the conversation from individual wrongdoing to systemic accountability, laying the foundation for dignity-based jurisprudence under Article 21. Its influence is evident in subsequent cases and legislative reforms, marking it as a cornerstone of transformative constitutionalism in India.
Case Laws
Precedents Relied Upon:
Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty (1996) 1 SCC 490: Recognized rape as a violation of Article 21 and allowed interim compensation.
Chandrabhanu v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 126): Emphasized strict scrutiny in sexual offence cases.
Common Cause v. Union of India (1996):
Expanded PIL jurisprudence for enforcement of fundamental rights.
*Rupan Deol Bajaj v. KPS Gill* (1995): Held that even non-physical acts can outrage a woman’s modesty under Section 354 IPC.
Conclusion
The legacy of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan extends far beyond the tragedy that sparked it. The judgment institutionalized zero tolerance for sexual harassment and reframed workplace safety as a constitutional imperative rather than a matter of employer discretion. Even after the enactment of the POSH Act, 2013, Vishakha continues to inform interpretation, compliance, and enforcement.
By foregrounding dignity, equality, and autonomy, the Supreme Court transformed the workplace into a site of constitutional protection. Persistent challenges—such as ineffective Internal Complaints Committees and lack of awareness—remain, but the normative shift achieved by *Vishakha* is irreversible. The case stands as a testament to the Constitution’s capacity to evolve and respond to lived realities, affirming women’s agency and rightful place in the public sphere.
FAQS
Q1: What triggered the Vishakha PIL?
A: The gang rape of Bhanwari Devi in 1992 for opposing child marriage, exposing systemic failure to protect working women.
Q2: Are the Vishakha Guidelines still relevant after the POSH Act?
A: Yes. They continue to guide interpretation and fill gaps where statutory provisions are silent.
Q3: Do the guidelines apply to the unorganized sector?
A: Yes. Courts have clarified that all workplaces, formal or informal, fall within their scope.
Q4: What happens if employers fail to comply?
A: Non-compliance can attract contempt of court and statutory penalties under the POSH Act.
Q5: Why was international law important in this case?
A: CEDAW reinforced constitutional guarantees and helped the Court articulate standards for gender equality consistent with global norms.
