Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 3011

Court: Supreme Court of India

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

Date of Judgment: 13 August 1997

Brief Facts

The case emerged from a gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, who was a lower caste woman who was working for the Rajasthan government under the Women’s Development Programme. As she was working near a village in Jaipur, she witnessed child marriage, and she tried to stop the marriage. In retaliation, she was gang raped by five men, including a member of the upper cast.

Despite her courage in filing a complaint, the police demonstrated negligence by delaying the investigation and mishandling the medical examination reports. The trial court acquitted all five accused due to a lack of evidence. This sparked widespread outrage across India as there was no proper system to protect women from sexual harassment in the workplace.

Reacting to this injustice, a Women’s Rights Organization (NGO) filed a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) under the name Vishaka to seek justice and to create a proper framework to address sexual harassment in the workplace.

Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions

Constitution of India:

• Article 14 – Equality before the law
• Article 15 – Prohibition of discrimination
• Article 19(1)(g) – Freedom to practice any profession
• Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty
• Article 253 – Implementation of international treaties
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): International treaty ratified in 1993

Issue:

1. Sexual harassment at the workplace violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the state’s failure to create a framework to protect women from sexual harassment amounted to a breach of constitutional and international
3. Whether the Supreme Court could enforce an international convention in the absence of specific domestic legislation.
4. Whether the judiciary could formulate enforceable guidance in an area where parliament has not legislated.

Arguments

The petitioner’s arguments

• Sexual Harassment is a serious violation of human rights, and it also infringes on basic fundamental rights granted under Article 14 (equality), Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination based on sex), Article 19(1)(g) (grants freedom to work), and Article 21(right to life and dignity).
• As India has ratified CEDAW, an international convention that ensures the protection of women from all kinds of discrimination, India has a legal obligation to incorporate these principles in its national law.
• India lacked the presence of a proper framework to carry out proper procedures when there was sexual harassment against women in the Courts have power under Article 253 to give effect to international obligations.
• Article 21 is a fundamental right that protects individuals’ right to life, security, and ensures a dignified environment to work.¹

The respondent’s arguments

• The State of Rajasthan denied the culpability and stated that adequate legal remedies existed in the IPC (The Indian Penal Code).
• The government also showed concern about giving power to the judiciary for forming a framework could blur the separation of powers between the legislative and the
• The respondent also submitted that creating an enforceable law was the Parliament’s responsibility, and the court does not have the power to assume legislative roles.²

Judgment

In a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic verdict was delivered in the Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) by addressing a critical issue of sexual harassment of women at the workplace.³ The court acknowledged the issue of the absence of a proper framework to deal with sexual harassment against women and the lack of proper procedures to investigate such matters. It emphasized that this heinous crime is not a matter of personal misconduct, but it also violates various basic fundamental rights that are given to all.⁴

The court emphasized Article 21, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty, and more specifically, the right to live with dignity.⁵ They also focused on Article 14 (right to equality) and

¹ Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241

² Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241

³ Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1SS7) C SCC 241

4 Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1SS7) C SCC 241, para S

⁵ Constitution of India 1S50, art 21; Vishaka (n 1) para 10

Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex), which were infringed, which further highlights the significance of the case in the court.

The Court also gave recognition to the international treaty ratified by India, which is the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), by invoking Article 253 to create laws that would protect women from any form of discrimination. The court noted that, as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was ratified by India in 1993, it has a responsibility to fill the legal vacuum to ensure India’s compliance with its legal obligations under the treaty.

Furthermore, the court also recognized the power under Articles 32 and 141 to formulate binding guidelines to address and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. These guidelines, known as the Vishaka Guidelines, were drawn from the constitutional provisions, principle of gender equality, and international norms enshrined under the CEDAW. The court declared that the Vishaka Guidelines would be enforceable to all employers, both the public and private sectors, until Parliament enacted suitable legislation.

This verdict was a watershed moment in Indian history as it led to the implementation of the Vishaka Guidelines, which ensured the protection of women against harassment in the workplace. The Vishaka Guidelines lasted for 16 years until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act was finally passed in year of 2013.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of India had made a landmark decision in the Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, which focused on Article 21 that guarantees the right to life, but it ensured not only physical safety for survival, but it also ensured the right to a safe and secure working environment, especially for women. The court stated in its verdict that Article 21 provides the right to live with dignity, which includes safety for women in the workplace and freedom from sexual harassment.

Furthermore, the absence of any domestic law regarding the protection of women from sexual harassment led to a focus on Article 253, which allows the court to make laws to fill the legal vacuum that the parliament has not yet addressed. Since India ratified the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) in 1993, it has a legal obligation to follow the treaty, as it has no inconsistency with existing domestic law. The court also declared that the employers and institutions must prevent, prohibit, and redress acts of sexual harassment.

Additionally, the court ruled that in the face of a legislative gap, the judiciary has the power to issue guidelines to ensure the protection of fundamental rights. Thus, the Vishaka Guidelines were framed as binding law until appropriate legislation was enacted by the parliament, serving as a tool for ensuring constitutional protection at the workplace.

Obiter Dicta

In its obiter Dicta, the Supreme Court of India has made various observations that extend beyond the immediate fact of the case. The case focused on the issue of gender inequality, the importance of constitutional values, and the additional role of the judiciary in building a democratic society.

The case made it clear that the judiciary has the power to ensure that all individuals’ fundamental rights are protected, even if the legislature fails to enact laws to protect women from sexual harassment in the workplace. Article 253 allows the judiciary to come up with laws to fill the legal vacuum to uphold the spirit of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.⁶

The Judgment further underlines the importance of the empowerment of women in the current society to achieve the holistic growth of the country’s economy. The court observed that ensuring a safe working environment for women is not only a social imperative but a constitutional necessity. It emphasized Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life and dignity), as they are integral to providing a safe working environment for women to ensure gender equality.

Additionally, the court also noted that India’s obligations under international conventions, particularly the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), ratified by India, must not remain symbolic. These international commitments should be implemented if there is no conflict with the domestic laws of India. The court relied on principles laid down in Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin⁷ and People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India⁸ to allow the implementation of an international treaty in India.

These remarks played a crucial role in the formation of the framework for Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which codified many principles from the Vishaka Guidelines.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming that sexual harassment at the workplace is a violation of fundamental rights and a breach of international obligations made by India.

The Court issued the Vishaka Guidelines, which will be treated as a law under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. These guidelines remained in force until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, was enacted.

⁶ Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1SS7) C SCC 241, para(10)

⁷ Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, (1S80) 2 SCC 3C0

⁸ People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1SS7) 1 SCC 301.

References

1. Vishaka & v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3011; (1997) 6 SCC 241. Constitution of India, 1950:
   • Article 14 – Equality before the law
   • Article 15 – Prohibition of discrimination
   • Article 19(1)(g) – Freedom of profession
   • Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty
   • Article 253 – Power to implement international agreements
   • Article 141 – Law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding

2. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), United Nations, 1979.

Available at: https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw

3. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. Available at: https://legislative.gov.in/

4. Baxi, The Future of Human Rights. Oxford University Press, 2002.
5. Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women’s Rights in India. Oxford University Press, 1999.
6. Dhanda, “Constructive Role of the Judiciary in Feminist Legal Discourse: Vishaka Judgment Revisited.”

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1998.

7. National Commission for Women – Report on the Implementation of Vishaka Available at: http://ncw.nic.in
8. Indian Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan case page. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/
9. Supreme Court “Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan – Summary.” Available at: https://www.scobserver.in/