CASE SUMMARY: Vishaka &. Ors vs. State of Rajasthan (1997)

• TITLE: Vishakha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors
• CITATION: AIR 1997 SC 3011.
• COURT: Supreme Court of India (3-judge bench).
• BENCH TYPE: Division bench.
• DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 13 August, 1997.
• PETITIONERS: Fali Sam Nariman, Meenakshi Arora, and Niti Dixit, Advs.
• RESPONDENTS: T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor general, Mukul Mudgal, Suvira Lal, C.V. Subha Roa, K.S. Bhati, and M.K. Singh, Advs.
• BENCH/CORAM: J.S. Verma, C.J.I., S.V. Manohar and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.

INTRODUCTION:

The Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan is the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court delivered in 1997. The case revolves around the environment that was unsafe, uneven, and unequal for the women of our country. It is watershed moment in Indian constitution and gender justice jurisprudence. The case delivered on 13 August, 1997, by a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex court headed by the Chief Justice J.S. Verma. It addressed the glaring gap in the Indian law: The absence of any legislation framework for preventing and redressing the growing issue of sexual harassment of women at the workplace.

The case arose from the brutal gang-rape of the Socialist worker, Bhanwari Devi, by the upper caste men in Rajasthan and led Apex court to the realization that a legislative measures are required to protect, prevent and address the growing issue of sexual harassment of women at the workplace and laying down the Vishaka Guidelines, which functioned as an interim binding law until Parliament enacted the Sexual harassment of women at the workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

Before 1997, Indian women lacked the statutory protection from workplace sexual harassment. The Indian Penal Code criminalized certain acts Such as Section-354 (Assault or criminal force to a Women with the intent to outrage her modesty) and Section-509 (Uttering any word, or any gesture, or act, intended to insult the modesty of a woman), but these provisions were

inadequate as they did not specifically recognized the workplace as a site of gender-specific susceptibility. Women continued to face sexual harassment and discrimination at offices, factories and even in unorganized sectors.

At the same time, India had ratified the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women) on 9 July, 1993, to end all the discrimination and violence against women. Yet, India had not enacted any enabling legislation.

The issue reached its peak with Rajasthan shocking incident in 1997, which highlighted the importance and urgent need of legal protection and prevention against the sexual harassment of women at the workplace.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• Bhanwari Devi was a social worker, started working as a government-employed social worker under the Rajasthan women’s development project in the year, 1985. She was employed as a ‘Saathin’ which in Hindi means ‘Friend’. As a part of her duties, for women’s development project, in 1992, she tried to intervened to prevent the child marriage of an infant (a nine-year-old-girl) a minor daughter of Ram Karan Gurjar, in a village named Bhateri village, during the festival of Akha Tej (Akshaya Tritiya), which is traditionally a time when many child marriages take place. She tried all possible means to stop the event, but all Bhanwari Devi’s attempts resulted in being futile.
• On 5 May, 1992, the SDO along with DSP, went and stopped the child marriage of an infant. However, the marriage was performed the next day without any further police interference and actions. Later, it was demonstrated by the villagers that the visits of the police was a result of Bhanwari’s actions. This led to socially boycotting Bhanwari devi and her family, as a result of which she lost her job.
• The result of Bhanwari devi’s intervention severely angered the Gurjar community. On 22 September, 1992, while Bhanwari Devi was on the field with her husband, five men (Ram Sukh Gurjar, Gyarsa Gurjar, Ram Karan Gurjar, and Badri Gurjar along with Shravan Sharma) allegedly attacked her husband and beat him, and then brutally gang-raped Bhanwari Devi in front of her husband.
• Bhanwari Devi went to Bassi police station to filed an FIR. It has to be noted that Bhanwari devi was being constantly taunted and mocked by male and Female constable at the police station. However, the police delayed in filing an FIR (Violation of section-154 of CRPC), which resulted in delayed investigation and instead of providing immediate medical examination, her medical test was conducted 52 hours after the gang-rape (Violation of section-164A of CRPC). However, the medical examination did not mentioned any commission of rape in the report but rather mentioned the age of the victim.
• As many women’s organizations merged together for the justice, the case was transferred to the CBI. In September, 1993, a charge sheet was filed, and by October 1994, all five were arrested and charged with sexual harassment, conspiracy and gang rape.
• The Rajasthan high court denying them bail in December, 1993. The judge NM Tibrewal said that Bhanwari Devi was gang-raped as an act of revenge for attempting to stop the child marriage of an infant, a minor daughter of Ram Karan Gurjar.
• But in November, 1995, with the help of the local MLA Dhanraj Meena, the Jaipur trial court acquitted all the five-accused on the ground that men from different castes cannot involved in rape and it was unlikely that rape to happen if her husband was present there. The acquittal of all the five accused led to the widespread outrage among the women’s organizational groups and human rights organizations.
• Due to the injustice and a Serious gap between the legislative measures for prevention and redressal of sexual harassment of women at the workplace, many women’s and human rights organizations and activists coalesced and came forward for the justice.
• Vishaka, a women’s right organization, along with others human rights activists, including Medha Kotwal Lele, Rupam Deol Bajaj, and others filed a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) under Article-32 for the enforcement of the fundamental rights.
• This PIL sought the recognition of Sexual Harassment of women at the workplace as the violation of fundamental rights under Article- 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

LEGAL ISSUES:

• Whether the sexual harassment of woman at the workplace violate the fundamental rights under the article- 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
• Whether the Supreme Court could apply international laws in the absence of applicable legislation measures under the existing?
• What duties do employers, institutions and states have to prevent and address sexual harassment of women at the workplace?

PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS:

• The indecent act of sexual harassment of women at the workplace violate the fundamental rights enshrined under Article-14 (Equality before law), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), 19(1)(g) (Freedom of profession), and 21 (Right to life and personal liberty).
• In the absence of domestic laws, India’s obligations under CEDAW must guide Indian constitutional interpretation.
• According to Article-51(c)- the state shall foster respect for international law and treaty obligations and under Article-253 parliament has power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaties.
• Because of the existing inadequate criminal laws, the court must prescribe an interim binding guidelines until the parliament enacted the legislation measures or laws for prevention and redressal of sexual harassment of women at the workplace.

RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS:

The Respondents did something unexpected, because sexual harassment was a growing problem and there was indeed a legal vacuum in addressing sexual harassment of women at workplaces. Realizing the need and vacuum in the legislation, the respondents supported the Petitioners arguments. The respondents help the Hon’ble Apex court in finding out an effective mechanism to curb the sexual harassment of women at the workplace.

Fali Sam Nariman, The amicus curiae along with Ms. Naina Kapur and Ms. Meenakshi Arora rendered valuable assistance to the Hon’ble Apex court in dealing effectively with the issue.

JUDGMENT:

The Hon’ble court concerned heavily on the law that would provide women with safe, comfortable and confident working environments. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections-354 and 509, were there and were to be referred in any case of sexual harassment but these sections were not specific and adequate the issue which was at stake. The court took the reference from international conventions. It referred to the Beijing Statement of Principles on the independence of the judiciary in the LAWASIA region, where the court function as a guardian of citizens rights and independently make laws in the absence of any legislative framework. The court also cited the Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa case, to reasoned that fundamental rights are not just theoretical but enforceable, and the court has a duty to provide effective Remedies, even if legislation is absent. Then the Hon’ble court took the reference from the general recommendation of CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women).

Which includes:

• Article-11 (1)

(a): States parties shall take appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination of women in the field of employment, which is recognized as an inalienable right of all human beings.

(f): Women have the right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions, including safeguarding reproductive health.

Regarding the fact that the present civil and criminal laws on sexual harassment of women at the workplace are inadequate and the enactment of such legislation would take considerable time, The Apex court then framed its binding principles, what it came to be known as VISHAKA GUIDELINES, that were to be treated as law declared under Article-141 of the Indian Constitution.

THE VISHAKA GUIDELINES:

• • Duty of the employer and other equivalent authorities in the work places: Employers or other responsible persons in work places to prevent or preclude the commission of acts of sexual harassment. In case, if such indecent incidents occurs, then the organization must provide the prosecutorial and conciliatory remedies.
    

• Definition:

For this purpose, sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as:

1. Physical contact and advances;
2. A demand or request for sexual favours;
3. Sexually coloured remarks;
4. Showing pornography;
5. Any other unwelcome physical, verbal non-verbal conduct of sexual nature;

• Preventive Measures:

All employers or persons in charge of work places whether in the public or private sector should take appropriate measures such as express prohibition of sexual harassment in the form of notification, publication and circulation, provide for appropriate penalties by government against the offender, and appropriate work conditions should be provided in respect of work, leisure, health and hygiene to prevent sexual harassment

• Criminal Proceedings:

Where such conducts amount to a specific offence under Indian Penal Code or any other laws, the employer must initiate appropriate action against the offender.

• Disciplinary Actions:

Where any such conducts amount to misconduct in employment appropriate disciplinary action must be taken by the employers in accordance with those rules.

• Complaint Mechanism:

An appropriate complaint mechanism should be created at employer’s organization for the redress of the complaint made by victims.

• Complaint Committee:

For the above mentioned, complaint mechanism, a complaint committee should be form whose members should be women and not less than half of its members should be consist of women.

Further, to prevent any contingent nature of pressure or influence from senior levels, such committee should involve a third party, either NGO or any other body who is familiar with the issue of sexual harassment.

• Workers Initiatives:

Employees should be allowed to raise issue of sexual harassment in Employer-Employee meeting.

• Awareness:

Employers should spread awareness of rights and remedies against sexual harassment at the workplace.

• Third Party Harassment:

Where sexual harassment occurs by any other third person or outsider, the employer or the person in charge will take all step necessary to assist the affected person.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

The Hon’ble Apex court held that Sexual harassment of women at workplace violates the basic structure of the Indian constitution under Article -14, 15, 19(1)(f), and 21. In the absence of any domestic legislation, The Apex court framed the Vishaka Guidelines to protect the women’s fundamental rights at workplace.

SIGNIFICANCE:

The Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan is not only the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court, but also the unforgettable recognition of Sexual harassment as the violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Indian women. The Hon’ble court relied on CEDAW, which India had ratified, demonstrating that international conventions can be referred to interpret the fundamental rights when there is no specific domestic law. The Apex court framed the Vishaka Guidelines for an interim time. The judgment guidelines led to the creation of Employer liability for any misconduct that cause any sexual harassment of the women at the workplace, aimed to provide safer working conditions for the daughters of this country.

IMPACT:

The judgment of the case remained the binding law for 16 years until Parliament enacted the Sexual harassment of women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013. The act gives legal backing to Vishaka Guidelines, fulfill India’s international commitments and provide women with clear and enforceable law for Prevention, prohibition and redressal against sexual harassment.

CRITICISM:

The Vishaka Guidelines laid the foundation for enactment of Sexual harassment of women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, which is a gender justice achievement for women’s recognition. But some critics argue that it creates more wide gaps between men, women and other gender of this country. Manoj Mitta, a journalist and author, severally criticized the act for gender-exclusive nature of the act, Brinda karat, CPI-M leader, raised concerns in parliament that the act excluded women in the armed forces and agriculture, leading to failure to cover the large section of working women, Naina Kapur, part of the original Vishaka petition, criticized the act on the ground that it shifted its focus away from the equality and dignity and making it more about compliance, and some argued that Despite the Vishaka guidelines, many organizations failed to constitute the committee for the prevention and redressal against sexual harassment of women at workplace or follow due procedure. Though the Vishaka guidelines and the act of 2013, may have seen a lots of criticism, it guarantees the safer working environment for the women.

CONCLUSION:

India is significantly closer to its digital development phase. With opening more doors to opportunities and innovations, it also opens various doors to violations of laws and rights. In order to protect and redress these rights, one needs to develop awareness of those rights and violations. Women are now working in a different field under different conditions, but still, we can’t say that women in our country are safe at night. The fear of being victim of any form of sexual harassment is still there in their heart.

It was truly a historical achievement when the Hon’ble Apex court set up safety rules for women in the form of Vishaka Guidelines, further leading to the enactment of Sexual harassment of women at workplace (Prohibition, Prevention, Redressal), Act, 2013, establishing the example 

That when domestic laws aren’t adequate, one of the pillars of our society can step in and frame such guidelines for the safety of daughters of this country.

REFERENCE:

[1] Vishaka & Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Ors (Supreme court, 13 August 1997) AIR 1997 SC 3011, (1997) 6 SCC 241 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794 (accessed 25 September 2025).
[2] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 354 and 509.
[3] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13.
[4] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 154.
[5] Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 164A.
[6] Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalit Behera v. State of Orissa and Ors (Supreme Court,