VISAKHA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (1997) 6 SCC 241

Citation: (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241
Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Bench: 3-judge bench
Panel: J.S. Verma, CJ and Sujata V. Manohar and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
Petitioners: Vishaka and ors.
Respondents: The State of Rajasthan and ors.
Date of judgment: August 13, 1997
Relevant Provisions: Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21 and 32

FACTS OF THE CASE

This tragic and instrumental context split the destiny of womankind, and resulted in many failures, mostly illegal deficiencies of protection devices for women at work before 1997.
One such case is of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker from Bhateri (Rajasthan), employed with the government sponsored Women’s Development Project. As a teenager, it was mostly the issue of child marriage and other such practices that she had to fight in her rural vicinity.
In 1992, when Bhanwari devi intervened to thwart a child marriage in an upper-caste household, the indignation of the people fell on her. She made an unsuccessful attempt to  rescue a child baby from getting married at a very young age due to his wealth Ram Karan Gurjar resulting in humiliating ex-communication and deprivation of financial resources.
On 22 September 1992, five men horrifically gang-raped her as punishment for trying. Compounding this barbarity was the indifference shown later to the survivor by the local police and doctors. Investigation Watered Down and 50 hours plus medical examination delayed and despite the examination the very pertinent details of this incident had been left out from her medical report.
Even though the incident was extremely serious, the trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence or so-called procedural technicalities. Most of the population considered this acquittal to be either miscarriage of justice or something quite similar and forced many women’s rights groups to take collective action filing Public Interest Litigation (PILs) under Article 32 of the Constitution.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the acquittal of the accused and salvations to follow from the no providing of safe working place for women could be made to assume a character violate of fundamental rights, enshrined in Articles 14, 15, 19(1) & Article 21?
2. Would the Judges have been prepared, in the absence of any statutory provision for sexual harassment at workplace to frame guidelines vide their judgment which would be binding nature to safeguard the rights of women?If an employer had inherent obligations at a very least of providing and maintaining such a working environment, free from sexual harassment, to not deny the women on its payroll their right to work?
3. Whether,  in the absence of domestic legislations, international treaties and norms, particularly on the rights of women (including CEDAW), could be relied upon by Court as an aid to interpret constitutional guarantees?

ARGUMENTS

By Petitioners:
This is what the women’s rights groups and the NGOs-here- in the name of Vishaka, said about their public interest litigation:
● Infringement of Fundamental Rights:
Petitioner contended that all cases of sexual harassment-like the case of Bhanwari Devi can amount to an infringement though direct or immediate, upon a woman’s: (1) right to equality, (Article 14) as well as her life and liberty protected by Article 21; and (2) the exercise of any profession, or the carrying on of any occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1) (g). Lack of protective legislation, which had given to women no protection but naked innocence with its void of remedy afforded them no relief.
● Specific Guidelines Required:
These are insufficient, ill-matched to the issues that occur in sexual harassment at workplace case this petition prayed for clear guidance on behalf of the framers of these codes-Criminal Procedure Code, IPC & Evidence so as to fill the vacuum and be a stop gap arrangement till a particular law is passed.
● International Norms Reliance:
Petitioners contend that as India is a party to CEDAW and has agreed to protect the rights of women, these protections should be similarly extended to Indian women under domestic law.
It was contended that the constitutional guarantees should be understood in consonance with international rules and standards, ensuring that such victims receive necessary protection and remedies.
By Respondents
Within this extraordinary scenario, the respondent side-in this case, represented by the Solicitor General-sought to support the petitioners’ cries for judicial intervention:
● Judicial Responsibility without Legislation:
The petitioners submitted, however,  that in the absence of recognition by the legislation an act of this nature ought to be remitted by Article 32 judicially. They met with the applicants and concurred in fixing up guidelines where under a work environment could be made immediately safe for ladies till reforms in the law were brought about.
● Employer Accountability:
Respondent say, employers have a legal and moral obligation to provide a safe working environment. They argued that the state shall prescribe mechanisms for advertising and establishing redressal committees to monitor and receive complaints of sexual harassment.
● Adherence to International Best Practices:
They added that it would be also important to bring India in line with the international best practices. That may close any avenue to the future of law legislation by bolstering the foundations of women’s rights with more entrenched entrenchment of international convention in domestic law.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The scope of Fundamental Rights envisaged by the Constitution are broad enough to cover all dimensions of gender equality including protection against sexual harassment or abuse. The court further emphasized the principle of legitimate expectation based on international modalities. There is no other reason to get away from international convections and norms for interpreting domestic law when they are not consistent to the national laws.

JUDGEMENT

The judgment delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice J.S. Verma, Justice Sujatha V. Manohar, and Justice B.N. Kirpal marks a landmark legal milestone in the history of workplace sexual harassment. Some highlights of this landmark decision include:
The Court defined sexual harassment in a broad way, not limited to mere verbal or physical contact. Any inappropriate sexual conduct—whether verbal, non-verbal, or through gestures—constitutes sexual harassment if it creates a hostile work environment. This marked a significant shift from earlier definitions, which were narrow and often excluded acts that could actually constitute harassment.
It is well-documented that sexual harassment violates the most fundamental right guaranteed to women by the Constitution. In fact, no woman in the world can be said to be in politics unless she has been subjected to actual harassment. Harassment can degrade a woman and violate her right to a safe working environment. Thus, the Court’s reasoning rests squarely on the principles of equality and human dignity.
The judgment firmly established that sexual harassment violates women’s fundamental rights under the Constitution. In fact, no woman in the world can enter politics unless she has been harassed. This can degrade a woman and violate her right to a safe working environment. Therefore, the Court’s logic is firmly grounded in equality and human dignity.
The Court stated that until Parliament enacts a comprehensive law, the Vishaka Guidelines it created will apply to all employers, whether in public or private service. It also laid down clear procedural requirements regarding the prevention of sexual harassment, the establishment of complaint committees, time-bound redressed mechanisms, and necessary awareness programs.
Contrary to many traditions, the Supreme Court has used international conventions as a supplementary source to domestic law. By relying on provisions of international conventions like CEDAW, the Court once again upheld its commitment to gender justice, while also ensuring that its decision was in accordance with international human rights standards. Thus, the August 13, 1997, judgment is seen as a proactive and transformative use of judicial power to uphold women’s rights in the absence of any substantive legal framework.
It took Parliament nearly 16 years to enact a law to uphold and enforce the rights of working women. This Act is more comprehensive, specifying the requirements and summarizing the guidelines mentioned above.

CONCLUSION

The Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan judgment was a milestone victory in the struggle against sexual harassment at the workplace in India. In their absence of a specific legislation, the Supreme Court enacted Vishaka Guidelines to safeguard women’s constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights—the non-negotiable guidelines for every employer to maintain a safe, healthy and gender-just work environment.” This case declared sexual harassment as a violation of the fundamental right to equality, dignity and work. Ultimately, Vishaka Guidelines clarified that women have legal protection and granted recognition of a sexual harassment free environment as an aspect of genuine gender equality.

REFERENCING

• CASE ANALYSIS VISAKHA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (1997) 6 SCC 241 » Lawful Legal. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2025, from https://lawfullegal.in/case-analysis-visakha-vs-state-of-rajasthan1997-6-scc-241/
• Case Comment: Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors – Academike. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2025, from https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/case-comment-vishaka-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-ors/
• Landmark Judgment Summaries | Supreme Court of India | India. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2025, from https://www.sci.gov.in/landmark-judgment-summaries/
• Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2025, from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/