Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors, 1997 (6) SCC

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma, Sujata V. Manohar, B. N. Kirpal JJ.

Date of Judgement:  August 13, 1997 241

Relevant Provisions/ Statutes: Article 14, Article 15, Article 19 (1) g, Article 21, Article 32 of the Constitution of India; the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), approved by India in 1993.

Brief Facts:

A petition was filed after the brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker employed by the state government of Rajasthan. As a part of her work under the Women’s Development Programme, she had to prevent child marriages, infanticide, foeticide, and raise awareness among women about hygiene, family planning, and female literacy. During her work, she tried to stop the marriage of a nine month old girl and as a requital she was raped by five men of a upper community.

Although her case was tried under the criminal law of India, a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed under Article 32 before the Supreme Court of India by several social activists and NGOs under the name ‘Vishaka’ (platform) to look at the broader issue of sexual harassment of women at workplace and the absence of an effective system under the law that protects the working women.

This petition demanded the implementation of fundamental rights of working women under Article 14 – “ The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India”; Article 15 – “ The state shall not discriminate against any citizen based on caste, sex, place f birth or any of them”;  Article19(1)(g) – “ All citizens shall have the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”  and Article 21- “ No person shall be deprived of this life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law of the Constitution of India”, focusing on the vaccum in the existing legislation.^[1]

Issues:

1. Does sexual harassment in work place lead to violation of fundamental rights under Article 14, 15, 19(1) (g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
2. Can the Supreme Court of India issue an alternative mechanism or frame specific guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women in work workplace in the absence of specific legislation
3. Can the decisions given by international forums like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) be applied to interpret constitutional rights if they are not inculcated in the domestic laws of India?

Arguments: 

Petitioners’ Arguments (Vishaka and Ors):

1. Sexual harassment at workplace violates the fundamental rights of women under Article 14 which states “ The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India”; Article 15 – “ The state shall not discriminate against any citizen based on caste, sex, place f birth or any of them”;  Article19(1)(g) – “ All citizens shall have the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business”  and Article 21- “ No person shall be deprived of this life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law of the Constitution of India”.
2. The insufficiency of the existing criminal laws under the Indian Penal Code to address grave issues like sexual harassment and to recognise such harassment as a civil rights violation.
3. Failure of the state to provide a safe working environment, violating its obligations under the Constitution of India and the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
4. The Supreme Court should take guidance from various international agreements, especially the CEDAW, which was accepted by India. According to CEDAW, sexual harassment is a form of gender- based discrimination and violence.
5. Guidelines shall be provided by the Supreme Court of India to protect the rights of women since the parliament failed to enact such legislation.

Respondents’ Arguments (Union of India and State of Rajasthan):

1. There was a legislative vacuum that existed as agreed by the Union government and the State of Rajasthan; they did not oppose the relief sought by the petitioners, i.e, Vishaka and others.
2. The Solicitor General assisted the court regarding the rules that should be put in place/ enforced, affirming its necessity.
3. The respondent, i.e, Union of India and State of Rajasthan, acknowledged that sexual harassment undermines women’s rights and that there was an urgent need to issue guidelines until the Parliament could act in regards with the same.

 

 

The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgement stating that sexual harassment in the workplace violates the fundamental rights of women given under:

• Article 14 – The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India (Right to equality)
• Article 15 – The state shall not discriminate against any citizen based on caste, sex, place of birth or any of them (The right a person holds from sex- based discrimination)
• Article 19 (1) (g) – All citizens shall have the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business (Right to practice a profession)
• Article 21 – “No person shall be deprived of this life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law of the Constitution of India (Right to life and dignity)

of the Indian Constitution.

The court declared that sexual harassment was a violation of rights and that a safe working environment was a necessity for any woman to enjoy their constitutional rights.

The court exercised its powers under Article 32 ( the right to move to the supreme court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed) to enforce fundamental rights, as there were no specified laws regarding the issue at that time. The Supreme Court also issued the Vishakha Guidelines, which have to be binding under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution (the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India).

The court stated that international laws must be taken into consideration. Though the CEDAW was not enacted into the legislation, it could be applied to interpret and expand the constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi:

Since there was an absence of a law on addressing sexual harassment in workplaces, the apex court was entitled under Article 32 to enforce the fundamental rights by issuing guidelines. Sexual harassment in work place infringes on a woman’s right.

Obiter Dicta:

1. The court noted that when the executive or legislature fails to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, it needs to step in and take the issue into its hands.
2. The court noted that the system had to face a bigger problem, and it was not a women-centric issue. According to the constitution, treating everyone equally is a part of the basic foundation rights.
3. The Vishaka Guidelines are important and a necessity to ensure the safety of women in the workplace. The state must look into its effective implementation, procedures, and a secure and sound grievance redressal system.

 The Final Decision:

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the petitioner and introduced the Vishakha guidelines, which were binding until formal legislation was passed by the parliament. These guidelines were mandatory at all workplaces, whether it’s a government-run entity or a private company. It provides guidelines for the employer, and they are bound to follow them.

The Vishakha guidelines laid a foundation for the later enactment, i.e, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act, 2013)

The petitioners succeeded in securing legal protections for women, and this case became a revolution of gender justice and safety at workplace safety laws in India.

About the guidelines:

Vishakha guidelines require all employers to:

1. Prohibit sexual harassment through policies
2. Setting up complaint committees with more than 50% women and an external member from either the legal department or an NGO.
3. Taking immediate action if harassment occurs
4. Creation of awareness about the rights women have
5. Making sure that the customers or anyone visiting have the same legal protection in their workplace.

Conclusion:

This case marked a turning point in the protection of women’s rights in the workplace in India. By understanding the loophole about the violation of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court of India filled in an important legal gap that would protect women from sexual harassment in their workplace.

This guideline helped in framing the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2013. It emphasized that the right to work while upholding dignity is an essential part of the right to life under Article 21. By recognizing the international convention (CEDAW), the Supreme Court strengthened India’s commitment to gender justice.

[1] Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,
AIR 1997 SC 3011; (1997) 6 SCC 241.