Case Summary: Visakha vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

• Case Title: Visakha vs. State of Rajasthan
• Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3011
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Chief Justice J.S. Verma, Sujata V. Manohar, B.N. Kirpal
• Date of Judgement: August 13, 1997
• Relevant Provisions/Statutes: Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Introduction:

Visakha vs. State of Rajasthan is a renowned case, popularly known as a sexual harassment case at the workplace. It was the first case held by the Supreme Court regarding sexual harassment at the workplace. The term ‘Sexual Harassment’ means doing any sexual favor or making a sexual gesture to women. It also refers to insulting the person to whom it has been done.

Sexual harassment also means “Eve Teasing” to a person or passing sexual comments against women. This term generally violates the fundamental rights of a person under Article 14, i.e., right to equality before the law, Article 19(1)(g), i.e., right to do any profession, trade, business, etc., and Article 21, i.e., right to life or right to live a dignified life. 

Facts of the case:

Bhanwari Devi, a woman in Rajasthan, worked as a social activist. In 1985, a woman from her nearest village was raped by a person, and Bhanwari Devi helped her in the rape case; she got support from her village for this type of work. In 1992, she spoke out as a social activist to stop child marriage, but her villagers did not support her. After that, one day, Ramkaran Gujjar, a neighbor of Bhanwari, celebrated the marriage of his infant daughter. She tried to stop the marriage, but she failed. For that, she informed the Sub-division office. And SDO and some police officers came to his house and stopped the marriage. But, Gujjar married his daughter the next day, and no one stopped him because of the villagers. 

One day, Bhanwari’s husband was attacked by the five people, including Ramkaran Gujjar, and later Bhanwari Devi was gang raped by them in front of her husband. Then they went to the police station to file an FIR, but the police tried to avoid them. Then, after a lot of criticism, they filed a complaint against those five persons. But Bhanwari Devi had to stay in the police station one night. And a police man asked her to leave her lehenga with a blood stain as evidence. But in her medical examination, the examiner did not mention that she had been raped; the examiner only mentioned her age. Then they brought her case before a district trial court, and the court acquitted them due to a lack of proper evidence. After that, a group of women from NGOs known as Visakha filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of India. And this case generally focused on the enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), & 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Raised:

• Whether the judgment of the trial court violates the fundamental rights of Bhanwari Devi under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), & 21 of the Constitution of India?
• Does the employer have no responsibility to the employee after the incident with Bhanwari Devi?

Arguments

Petitioner’s argument:

The petitioner has filed a writ petition that comprises several rights of women. The argument of the petitioner is:-

• Infringement of Fundamental Rights: The petitioner argued that the sexual harassment of women at a workplace directly infringes the fundamental right of equality, right to life, & right to follow any profession under Articles 14, 21 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner drew the attention of the Hon’ble Court to the safety of women.
• Specific Legislation for the Safety of Women in the Workplace: In India, economic support is also needed, and women are helped economically. But in India, there is no specific legislation for women regarding sexual harassment at the workplace. It creates an unsafe environment for women, that’s why many of them quit their jobs. So, the petitioner argued for the implementation of new laws for preventing sexual offences.
• Specific Guidelines Required: The petitioner said that, for the safety of women at the workplace, some specific guidelines are required for the author of the Indian Penal Code, the Codes of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act, so that the author writes some laws that provide safety to women.
• Duty of Judiciary: The petitioner further argued that it was the duty of the judiciary to implement laws in the absence of specific legislation on sexual harassment. And also make legislation to make a safe environment for women in their workplace, so that men are afraid to commit such crimes.

Respondents Argument

In this case, the solicitors of the respondents support the petitioner’s side and argue against the accused person. He said that:-

• Responsibility of the Judiciary in the Absence of Legislation: The respondent solicitor, on the contrary, argued that in the absence of specific legislation, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to make any provision that creates a safe environment for women. They also agreed with the petitioner’s statement of the requirement of specific guidelines.
• Employer Accountability: The respondent also argued that the employer has some legal & moral responsibility for the safety of women employees at their workplace. It was the duty of the employer to make various committees that look after the problem of women and take actions to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

Judgment:

The judgment given by the bench of Chief Justice J.S. Verma, Sujata V. Manohar, and B.N. Kirpal sets a legal milestone in the sexual harassment at the workplace. The highlights of the landmark judgement are as follows:-

The court defined sexual harassment as unwelcome sexually determined behavior, whether verbal or non-verbal, at the workplace. It was a breakdown for women to quit their jobs in the workplace because of such an act. The sexual harassment generally violates all the fundamental rights of women guaranteed by the Constitution. This act degrades the woman’s fundamental rights and creates an unsafe environment for them at their workplace. That’s why the court focused on human rights and equality.

Then the court declared that until the parliament makes new laws about sexual harassment, the guidelines provided in the Visakha judgment will be enforced in all places, both in the private and government sectors. It is also binding on the employer to take care of their employees.

Ratio Decidendi:

The ratio decidendi of the Visakha judgment provides some guidelines. These are:-

• Sexual Harassment violates Fundamental Rights: The court held that the sexual harassment of a woman at their workplace violates the fundamental rights of a woman, which are guaranteed in the Constitution of India under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, which defines the right to equality, life, and to do any profession, trade, business, etc. 
• Judicial Duty in Filing Legislative Gaps: The court declared that in the absence of legislation, it is the duty of the court to provide some provisions for the protection of women at their workplace against any type of crime. And this process is considered constitutional as well as judicial.
• Duty of the Employer for a safe working environment: The court ruled that it is the duty of the employer to set a safe environment for women employees in workplaces. And also, the employer must set up a committee to deal with such matters and take preventive action against such types of acts. The employer gives the power to the women employees to raise their voice against such issues during the employer-employee meeting.
• Making awareness among the employees: The awareness must be made among all the employees so that if a person faces such a problem, another person must take action. Even if an employee faces problems such as sexual harassment by a third party who is not a part of the organization, the employer should take all the necessary actions against the person.

Final Decision:  

The court decided that the Visakha case was a violation of the fundamental rights of women in their workplace. And the police did not fulfill their duty properly. There is also a gap in laws against sexual harassment. The employer did not perform their duty and fired Visakha from the office, and did not take any action against Ramkaran Gujjar and four others, because they were not from their office. It is not like the employer must take action for their employee even if the accused was not from their office. So, the Supreme Court found those persons guilty and set an empowerment for women that they were not a toy; they also have the right to take action if they face any problems.

Conclusion:

The Constitution of India guaranteed the protection of fundamental rights and created a safe environment in the workplace, particularly for women. The Visakha guidelines set a precedent for the women’s safety in their workplace. It also mandates the employer to take action against any person who commits any type of crime against any other person. And also the Visakha judgment guidelines hold the employer responsible for the prevention of crimes, and to file a complaint and support victims. And this case ensures that every person has the same right.