Case Summary: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241

1. Case Title: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 

2. Citation: (1997) 6 SCC 241; AIR 1997 SC 3011 

3. Court: Supreme Court of India 

4. Bench: Justice J.S. Verma (CJI), Justice Sujata V. Manohar, and Justice B.N. Kirpal 

5. Date of Judgment: 13 August 1997 

6. Applicable Law / Key Provisions: 

• Article 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 Constitution of India
• Article 32 from the Constitution (applying fundamental freedoms) 
• Article 51(c) in the Constitution places even greater emphasis on developing an international spirit of cooperation in convergence in respect towards the judiciary for international principles. 
• Convention to End All Forms of Discriminations Against Women (CEDAW), 1979 ● Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, 1995 

Facts 

The Vishaka case fell in national limelight following a murderous outburst in one of the rural pockets of Rajasthan which had dominated in a big way the collapse of laws in addressing sexual harassments in Indian workplaces during early 1990s. 

Bhanwari Devi was a woman social worker of women’s development project (WDP) working in service of Government of Rajasthan. She wrote openly to end child marriage, dowry, and other societal evils. While in 1992 she did her best not to marry an infant girl in her society, she faced strong resistance in the shape of people from upper caste. As a retaliatory act as also to intimidate her, Bhanwari Devi was brutally gang-raped by five individuals in front of her husband.

The crime had shaken the national conscience. But when justice was attempted to be meted out by Bhanwari Devi herself, she was greeted with callousness as much as humiliation. Police were late in recording her complaint; medical evidence was tampered with; and all the accused persons were acquitted at the lower court. This naked face of injustice reflected the vulnerability of women in workplace contextswith a special reference to such women like Bhanwari Devi who were in the forefrontwho were not only subjected to sexual harassements, but also failure of protection at the systems’ level. 

Women organizations, NGOs, and civil society organizations united under the flag “Vishaka”, and there was pending a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Article 32 before Supreme Court in India. Their argument was harassments at workplace would be a violation of basic freedoms of women to an extent that there is no law in India at such level, Court would intervene. 

Issues Involved 

Prior to it were certain basic problems of constitutional as well as social character: 

1. How far is it a violation of women’s basic right entitlement under articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India? 
2. Is failing to perform on their part by the State in enforcing laws exempting the State and employers from the duty to afford their female working employees dignity and security? 
3. How much distance is Indian law facing in using international instruments such as CEDAW and the Beijing Declaration to come up with enforceable directives? 
4. How much latitude does Article 32 allow to whatever by Supreme Court rules in lieu of law? 

Arguments 

Petitioner Arguments(Vishaka and women’s associations): 

These office harassments constitute breach of Article 14 (equality before law), Article 15 (abolition of all discrimination on any ground including sex), Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to make livelihood or to pursue any occupation or profession), and Article 21 ( liberty of life including decent life and safe environment in which to live in order to work for it). 

Absence of law can never mean absence of rights. The Court will have to fill in the legislative vacuum.

India is also a party to CEDAW and is equally enjoined under Article 51(c) of the Constitution to not act in derogation to treaty obligation or international law. International norms will inform judicial interpretation in this case to the extent of non-existence of conforming law in state. 

Respondent Arguments(Union of India and State of Rajasthan): 

It concurred with the seriousness of the issue but persisted to argue that courts must not make laws. Law-making is not the responsibility of Parliament whereas judgments dictated by judges would bring the interference of judges at par. Even reform for victims is ordained in Indian Penal Code (IPC) for these crimes such as assault, molestation, and rape. 

Brief Amicus and Brief of Intervenor Like such everyday provisions of IPC were enough not because it kept its set of examples like assault or rape in mind, but everyday harassments at workplace (verbal remarks, physical gestures, offending behavior) were not excluded.

Legislative deference can never be the basis for withholding justice. Judges need innovativeness in awarding basic rights. 

Judgment 

The Supreme Court delivered a historic verdict that re-directed the course of legislations for the welfare of empowering women in India. 

It also agreed in submission that harassment in a ground in the employment relationship is a breach of a fundamental right that is in Article 14, 15, 19, and 21.

Article 21 was thus interpreted that contained a right to live with dignity, security in his or her employment, and a right of any citizen to attain a vocation in life in case when there is no discrimination based on sex in his or her vocation. 

The Court cited Article 51(c) while trying to hold that treaty and international agreement (as is CEDAW a classic example) is enforceable in the absence of derogating legislation by the state. 

It spoke of the legislative vacuum and it persisted until when an Act was passed in absolute terms by Parliament, courts were bound to safeguard the civil rights of women. 

Thus, it formulated Vishaka Guidelines as a way of attempting to regulate workplace settings in India. Art 141 in the Constitution had rendered guidelines obligatory so it was of force of law until an act in Parliament had operated. 

The Vishaka Guidelines 

The Supreme Court has institutionalised elaborate provisions that were in the direction of anticipatory prevention as well as redressal for harassments in the sexual domain in office spaces. Some of them are as follows: 

1. What is Sexual Harassment?: Unwelcome behavior due to sex either immediately or through indirect methods, i.e., physical touch, asking for sexual favors, sexually tinged comments, displaying pornography, etc., as well as other unwelcome verbal communications, body gestures, or body displays. 
2. Prevention Measures: There is also another duty on the part of employers to render the workplace safe besides installing prevention measures against harassments like disseminating policy as also awareness programmes. 
3. Criminal Proceedings: In the event that it is a crime against Harassment, stringent action should be initiated in the IPC. 
4. Disciplinary Action: Disciplinary action will be handed out in exceptional instances to transgressors in accordance with service laws. 
5. Complaint Mechanism: Every employer will be required to maintain in operation a Complaints Committee that will comprise a female chairperson who will also be at least 50% female members as well as third-party/NGO representation. 
6. Worker Awareness: Awareness to workers about their rights as well as available reliefs. 
7. Third-Party Harassment: Even employers are under obligation to act in safeguarding women from outsiders within their workplace in their profession. 

Ratio Decidendi 

The philosophical question that this experiment poses is: 

These sexual harassments in workplaces are violation of inbuilt rights like Article 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21.

It is through that type of legislation that courts are given powers to enforce international instruments like CEDAW and provide directives which shall offer safeguards for fundamental freedoms. 

Obiter Dicta 

The Court also reminds here that Functional equality between men and women is not only the product of legislative actions, but also the product of actions from civil society. It brought about an attitudinal change at workplaces so that women are treated respectfully and with dignity but not as commodities or inferiors. The Court also noted discrimination-free society forIndia in coming days is wished by Constitution and it is clarion call for making it reality.  

Final Decision 

After Then Then Then After Then Now It Then Petitioners have their court case won in Supreme Court. It also declared Sexual Harassment in workplace as Violation of Fundamental Rights. These Vishaka Guidelines were issued and made obligatory in all private sector organisations as also public sector organisations until suitable legislation was enacted.

Implication for the Legal Case 

Vishaka’s choice had critical implications for Indian society, laws, and organisational practice. 

1. Immediate Implication: Employers were all legally obligated to adhere to accepted guidelines. Organisations predominantly established Complaints Committees. 
2. Confirmation by Courts: These guidelines were subsequently confirmed in subsequent cases such as Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) and Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013). 
3. Legislative Action: years in the making, it was not until when when Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 which codified as well as expanded Vishaka Guidelines. 
4. Social Change & Awareness: Placing workplace harassment on day-to-day conversation convinced women victims; encouraged women to speak up; as well as educated businesses about their duty. 
5. Continuing Issues: Differential application in certain informal sectors is present. Few employers still do not adequately establish Internal Complaints Committees.  

Critical Analysis 

Vishaka judgment is a judicial activism Watershed. It met the legislative void which was as much required as it guaranteed the women’s protections forthwith. Notwithstanding this, it also ushered in doubt about judicial encroachment, as technically the Court had legislated where there was neither statutory provision. Strengths: Modern, gender-sensitive interpretation of the Constitution. Integration of international law into national constitutional law. Relief to women working class forthwith till legislative intervention. Restrictions No practice implementations of guidelines were carried out in most organisations. Un-effective mechanisms of enforcement and oversight. Over-reliance on the benevolence of employers. Even though it was restrictive in nature, Vishaka is still a landmark in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, a symbol of the proposition that justice shall not wait for legislative lethargy.  

Conclusion 

The Vishaka decision is a gold standard in India’s quest for gender justice. Admitting that sexual harassment is a violation of basic fundamental rights and giving enforceable directions, the Supreme Court not only gave dignity as well as protection to lakhs of woman workers but also demonstrated judicial creativity in applying social justice. To date, despite the 2013 POSH Act, the Vishaka case is still a moral and legal base for society that is constantly reminding everyone that equality, dignity, and safety in the workplace are not special favors but constitutional rights.