Case Summary: Vishakha and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Bench: Chief Justice J.S Verma, Justice Sujata V. Manohar, Justice B. N. Kirpal. 
• Date of Judgment: 13 Aug 1997. 

Relevant Provisions/ Statutes:

• Constitution – Articles 14 (equality), 15 (no sex-based discrimination), 19(1)(g) (right to profession), 21 (life & dignity), 32 (PIL), 51(c) & 253 (use of international law).
• International Law – CEDAW 1979 (Art. 11), General Recommendation 19 (1992), Beijing Declaration 1995.
• Indian Law (then) – IPC §§354, 509; CrPC 1973; Evidence Act 1872.
• Post-Vishakha – Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013; Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 (IPC §354A).

Parties:

• Petitioners- Vishakha and a group of women’s rights organizations, NGOs, and social activists.
• Respondents- State of Rajasthan and Union of India. 

Brief Facts:

1. Bhanwari Devi was subjected to sexual violence while carrying out her duties as a government worker.
2. The criminal case against the perpetrators collapsed due to procedural and evidentiary issues.
3. Women’s groups led by Vishakha approached the Supreme Court, demanding recognition of sexual harassment at workplace as a violation of Fundamental Rights.
4. At that time, there was no specific legislation in India addressing workplace sexual harassment.

Issues:

1. Does sexual harassment of women at workplace amount to a violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution?
2. In the absence of domestic legislation, can the Court use international law and conventions like CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women)?
3. What obligations do the State and employers must ensure safe working conditions for women?

Arguments: 

Petitioners –

• Sexual harassment undermines the dignity, equality, and freedom of women.
• It directly violates Articles 14 (equality before law), 15 (prohibition of sex-based discrimination), 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession), and 21 (right to life and dignity).
• India is a signatory to CEDAW (1979) and must uphold international commitments.
• In absence of legislation, the Court should issue guidelines to fill the gap.

Respondents (State) –

• No specific Indian law existed at that time to regulate sexual harassment at workplaces.
• Left it to the Court to decide appropriate measures until Parliament enacted a statute.

Judgment

• The Supreme Court of India, in Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1997), laid down the Vishaka Guidelines to address sexual harassment at the workplace, in the absence of specific legislation.
• The Court found it important to note that gender equality, the right to work with dignity, and protection against sexual harassment is a Constitutional right under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21.
• They stressed that when interpreting constitutional rights, international conventions, treaties, and protocols, inclusive of CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) should be considered.
• International Conventions as Law – The Court references Articles 51(c) and 253 of the Constitution.
• By ratifying CEDAW, India has made a commitment to ensure that women are free from discrimination. Even in the absence of a law, it is incumbent upon a state to protect women from discrimination.
• Judicial Activism – Without recognizing a specific law or statutory authority, the Court in essence exercised law-making power when it issued binding guidelines.

Vishakha Guidelines (1997):

1. Sexual harassment was defined broadly to encompass – 

• Unwelcome physical contact and advances,
• Requests for sexual favours,
• Sexually charged comments,
• Showing sexually explicit material,
• Any other unwelcome physical, verbal (oral, written), or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. 

The Court affirmed that harassment does not require physical contact; the creation of a hostile work environment (through lewd jokes, comments, rumblings, abuse, etc.) will also constitute harassment.

The Court also stated that it recognized that victims experience stigma and power imbalance, and that it is understandable that complaints may be delayed due to mental barriers.

2. Responsibility for the Employer

• Provide a safe and secure working environment.
• Prevent a hostile or intimidating environment from being created.
• Take disciplinary action against those who offend.

3. Complaints Mechanism

Establish a Complaints Committee

• Include a woman as chairperson
• At least 50% women members
• Include an NGO/external member to ensure neutrality

4. Preventative Measures

• Have awareness campaigns in the workplace
• Clear anti-harassment rules
• Protocol for redressal as indicated

5. Responsibility for the Government 

• Ensure guidelines are issued in both the public and private sector.

Ratio Decidendi: 

Sexual harassment at workplace is a violation of Articles 14, 15, 19(1) (g), and 21 of the Constitution. In absence of legislation, the Court can rely on international conventions to frame guidelines. Judicial guidelines (Vishakha Guidelines) framed under Art. 32 r/w Art. 141 have binding force on all employers and workplaces until legislation is enacted.

Obiter Dicta:

Right to work with dignity and safety is integral to the concept of right to life under Article 21. Employers are under a constitutional duty to ensure a safe working environment for women. 

Final Decision:

The final decision in Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997) was that sexual harassment at the workplace violates Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.

Since no law existed, the Supreme Court issued the Vishakha Guidelines (binding as law) for all workplaces to prevent and redress sexual harassment, to be followed until Parliament enacted legislation (which later became the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013).

Significance:

1. Landmark for Women’s Rights: Acknowledged sexual harassment as an infringement on basic rights.
2. Judicial Law-Making: Court filled legislative gap with guidelines.
3. International Law in Domestic Sphere: CEDAW used to fortify constitutional rights.
4. Legislative outcome: Vishakha Guidelines held binding law until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted.

Impact:

• First case to legally deal with workplace sexual harassment in India.
• Consolidated the jurisprudence of gender equality.
• Created reference in later cases like:
• Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013) – Court reiterated Vishakha Guidelines.
• Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) – Held even attempt of harassment infringes women’s rights.

Conclusion: 

The Vishakha case is a significant moment in Indian constitutional and feminist jurisprudence. It established that gender equality, and safety at workplace, had an intrinsic relationship to fundamental rights. It also showed that the Supreme Court can fill legislative gaps with proactive action, based on approaches the recognized of use of international human rights conventions. They case had direct implications, leading to the 2013 Sexual Harassment Act, which affected how women could work safely in their workplace.

References: 

1. Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 S.C 3011.
2. INDIA CONST. arts. 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21, 32, 51(c), 141, 253. 
3. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13. 
4. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, No. 14 of 2013, INDIA CODE.