Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan (1997) AIR 1997 SC 3011 | (1997) 6 SCC 241

Facts of the Case

1. Bhanwari Devi, a social worker with the Rajasthan government’s Women’s Development Programme, worked against child marriages.
2. While trying to stop the marriage of a young girl from an upper caste, she faced backlash. Despite her intervention, the wedding eventually took place.
3. As retaliation, five or six men from the upper caste gang-raped Bhanwari Devi in front of her husband.
4. After her complaint, the trial court acquitted the accused, as local officials, doctors, and police dismissed her case.
5. In response, several women’s groups and NGOs filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court under the banner of Vishaka.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the acquittal of the accused and lack of a safe working environment for women violated Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Whether, in the absence of specific laws against workplace sexual harassment, the courts could frame guidelines (later known as Vishaka Guidelines).
3. Whether employers had a responsibility to ensure a safe working environment for women.
4. Whether international treaties like CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) could guide constitutional interpretation.

Petitioners’ Arguments

• Filed by the Vishaka group, consisting of women’s rights activists and NGOs.
• Argued that sexual harassment violated Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21.
• Highlighted the legal vacuum in India regarding workplace harassment.
• Requested the Supreme Court to frame preventive guidelines.

Respondents’ Arguments

• The Solicitor General supported the petitioners (with consent from respondents).
• Assisted by Amicus Curiae Fali S. Nariman, Ms. Meenakshi, and Ms. Naina Kapur.
• Supported the need for effective mechanisms to prevent workplace sexual harassment.

Judgment (1997)

Delivered by Chief Justice J.S. Verma, Justice Sujata V. Manohar, and Justice B.N. Kirpal.

Key Highlights:

• Sexual harassment defined broadly: Any unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature that creates a hostile work environment.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: Held that sexual harassment violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21.
• Employer’s Duty: Employers must ensure a safe working environment and establish complaint committees.
• Judicial Intervention: In absence of legislation, the Court framed Vishaka Guidelines under its powers from Article 32.
• International Law: Relied on CEDAW and other conventions to reinforce women’s rights.

Ratio Decidendi

1. Sexual harassment = violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21.
2. Judicial activism fills legislative gaps through Vishaka Guidelines.
3. Employer liability: Employers must prevent and redress sexual harassment.
4. International standards (like CEDAW) can be applied to strengthen domestic law.

Major Principles Established

• Constitutional Basis: Workplace harassment violates equality, dignity, and right to life.
• Employer Responsibility: Employers in public and private sectors must take preventive and remedial measures.
• Mandatory Guidelines:
  • Publish rules prohibiting sexual harassment.
  • Establish complaints committees.
  • Conduct awareness and training programs.
• Extensive Definition of Harassment: Includes physical, verbal, written, or implied sexual conduct.
• Use of International Law: Integrated CEDAW principles into Indian constitutional interpretation.

Significance of Vishaka Case

• Recognized workplace harassment as discrimination and violation of fundamental rights.
• Laid the foundation for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
• Empowered women to speak up and seek redressal.
• Raised awareness and sensitization on workplace harassment.
• Marked a historic step in gender justice in India.

FAQs

Q1. What is the importance of the Vishaka case?
It laid down Vishaka Guidelines, the first legal framework in India against workplace sexual harassment, later codified in the 2013 Act.

Q2. Which Articles were violated in this case?
Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.

Q3. How did international law influence the judgment?
The Court relied on CEDAW and international human rights principles to expand protections.

References

• Lawful Legal – Case Analysis
• Testbook – Vishaka Case

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India