CASE SUMMARY: VISHAKA vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Introduction:

The judgment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan stands as one of the most significant milestones in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1997, the case addressed the pervasive yet largely unacknowledged issue of sexual harassment of women at the workplace. In the absence of specific domestic legislation at the time, the Court stepped in to fill the legal vacuum by framing binding guidelines aimed at protecting the fundamental rights of working women. The decision not only expanded the interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution but also demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to rely on international conventions to enforce constitutional guarantees.

Public Interest Involved

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Vishaka case sought to address a grave public issue—sexual harassment of women at the workplace, particularly in situations where no legislative or procedural safeguards existed. The marginalised group at the centre of this litigation was working women, especially those engaged in public service and grassroots-level employment, who were exposed to systemic vulnerability, discrimination, and violence.

At the time, Indian law lacked a specific statutory framework dealing with workplace sexual harassment. As a result, women had little to no institutional support or redressal mechanisms. The petition highlighted how such harassment directly undermined women’s right to equality, dignity, and safe working conditions. The Court recognised that sexual harassment was not merely a private wrong but a public wrong affecting women’s participation in the workforce and, consequently, societal development.

Locus Standi and Relaxation of the Traditional Rule

Traditionally, the rule of locus standi restricted access to courts to persons whose legal rights were directly infringed. However, in this case, the PIL was filed not by the victim herself but by social activists and non-governmental organisations acting collectively on behalf of women, including the victim, Bhanwari Devi.

The Supreme Court relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi, acknowledging that victims of sexual violence and harassment often face social, economic, and psychological barriers that prevent them from approaching courts directly. The Court held that where a matter concerns the enforcement of fundamental rights of a disadvantaged or vulnerable group, public-spirited individuals and organisations are entitled to seek judicial intervention.

This relaxation allowed NGOs and women’s rights groups to represent Bhanwari Devi and similarly placed women, reinforcing the role of PIL as an instrument of social justice.

Facts of the Case:

The present PIL arose out of a brutal and deeply disturbing incident involving Bhanwari Devi, a social worker employed under the Women’s Development Programme (WDP) of the Government of Rajasthan. In 1992, while performing her official duties, Bhanwari Devi attempted to prevent a child marriage in a rural village in Rajasthan. As a consequence of her actions, she was subjected to gang rape by men belonging to an upper caste.

Despite the gravity of the offence and the fact that she was acting in her capacity as a state-appointed grassroots worker, Bhanwari Devi was denied adequate institutional and legal protection. The criminal justice system failed to deliver timely or effective relief, and there existed no specialised law to address sexual harassment or violence faced by women in the workplace.

The absence of a legal framework highlighted a systemic failure to safeguard women’s fundamental rights at work. Consequently, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1) (g), and 21.

Legal Issues Raised:

The Supreme Court was called upon to adjudicate several important constitutional and legal questions:

• Whether sexual harassment of women at the workplace amounts to a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Whether, in the absence of specific legislation, the Supreme Court could issue binding guidelines to protect women against sexual harassment at the workplace.
• Whether employers and institutions could be made responsible for ensuring a just, safe, and humane working environment for women under Article 42 of the Constitution.
• Whether the lack of domestic laws safeguarding women’s rights at the workplace constituted a failure of the State to discharge its constitutional obligations, thereby justifying judicial intervention.

Judgment and Court’s Reasoning:

The Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at the workplace is a clear violation of women’s fundamental rights. It was observed that such conduct infringes:

1. Article 14, by denying women equality before the law;
2. Article 15, by discriminating on the basis of sex;
3. Article 19(1)(g), by restricting a woman’s right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation; and
4. Article 21, by violating the right to life with dignity.

The Court also relied upon Article 42, which directs the State to ensure just and humane conditions of work, and Article 51, which promotes respect for international law and treaty obligations.

Importantly, the Court recognised that gender equality includes protection from sexual harassment and the right to work with dignity, which is universally acknowledged as a basic human right. It noted that equality in employment is severely compromised when women are subjected to gender-specific violence at the workplace.

Use of International Conventions:

In the absence of domestic legislation, the Court drew guidance from international conventions, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The Court held that international conventions could be relied upon to interpret and enforce fundamental rights, provided they were not inconsistent with constitutional provisions.

The Court also relied on comparative jurisprudence, including the principle laid down in Ministry of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh, which recognised that international conventions could inform domestic law in cases of legislative silence.

Guidelines Issued by the Court (Vishaka Guidelines):

To address the legislative vacuum, the Supreme Court framed comprehensive and binding guidelines, which were to remain enforceable until suitable legislation was enacted. The key directions included:

• Imposing a duty on employers to prevent and deter sexual harassment at the workplace.
• Providing a clear definition of sexual harassment, including physical contact, sexual advances, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, and other unwelcome conduct.
• Mandating preventive steps, such as express prohibition of sexual harassment and inclusion of penalties in service rules.
• Requiring initiation of criminal proceedings where the conduct amounted to an offence under the IPC.
• Establishing a complaint mechanism, including a Complaints Committee headed by a woman, with at least half of its members being women and the inclusion of a third-party NGO.
• Ensuring confidentiality, protection against victimisation, and time-bound redressal.
• Creating awareness and encouraging workers’ participation in addressing issues of sexual harassment.
• Extending employer responsibility even where harassment is caused by third parties or outsiders.

These guidelines were declared binding and enforceable in law.

Impact and Significances:

The Vishaka judgment had a transformative impact on Indian society and constitutional law. It was the first authoritative recognition that sexual harassment at the workplace violates fundamental rights. The decision strengthened judicial activism and demonstrated the Court’s role as a guardian of constitutional values.

Most importantly, the judgment laid the foundation for future legislative action, culminating in the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the POSH Act. The Act largely incorporates the principles and structure of the Vishaka Guidelines.

The case also set a precedent for courts to rely on international norms to protect constitutional rights and reinforced the accountability of employers in maintaining safe and dignified workplaces.

Criticisms and Debates:

Despite its wide appreciation, the judgment has attracted certain criticisms. Some scholars argue that the Court engaged in judicial overreach by effectively performing a legislative function. Others contend that the guidelines could have provided more detailed clarity regarding employer liability and enforcement mechanisms, particularly in cases involving third-party harassment.

However, these criticisms are largely outweighed by the necessity of judicial intervention at a time when legislative silence threatened the fundamental rights of women.

Conclusion:

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan remains a cornerstone of gender justice in India. By recognising sexual harassment as a constitutional violation and providing enforceable safeguards in the absence of legislation, the Supreme Court upheld the dignity, equality, and safety of working women. The judgment exemplifies the dynamic role of the judiciary in responding to social realities and continues to influence gender-sensitive jurisprudence in India.

References:

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241;
• The Constitution of India art 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21;
• Government of Rajasthan, Women’s Development Programme (WDP) Records (1992);
• Law Commission of India, Absence of Specific Legislation on Workplace Sexual Harassment Prior to 1997;
• Government of Rajasthan, Women’s Development Programme (WDP) Records (1992);
• The Constitution of India art 32;
• The Constitution of India art. 42;
• The Constitution of India art. 51;
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13;
• Ministry of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh, (1995) 183 CLR 273 (Austl.);
•  S P Sathe, Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2002);
•  Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (India);