VISHAKA V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

CITATION: (1997) 6 SCC 241[1]

JUDGEMENT DATE: 13th August 1997

BENCH FOR THE CASE: CJI J S Verma, Sujata V. Manohar, B. N. Kirpal

LAWS APLLICABLE:

The Constitution of India, 1950:

• Article 14 – “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” [2]
• Article 15 –

1. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
2. No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction, or condition regarding—

 (a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels, and places of public entertainment; or

(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the public.

3. Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
4. Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.]
5. Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.]”[3]

• Article 19(1) (g) – “to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.”[4]
• Article 21 – “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”[5]

OVERVIEW:

In 1997, the Supreme Court of India rendered a significant ruling in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, which addressed how the Indian Constitution interpreted sexual harassment and gender equality in the workplace.
The case started in 1992 when Bhanwari Devi, a social worker from Rajasthan, was viciously gang-raped by Gujjar people for trying to stop a one-year-old girl from getting married. Even when Bhanwari Devi informed the police about the crime, the case was dropped for lack of proof by the police. before order to contest the inactivity and demand responsibility, a group of women’s rights advocates and attorneys known as Vishaka filed a public interest litigation (PIL)[6] before the Indian Supreme Court.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Significant advancements for working women were brought about by the case “Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan & Ors”. This case notably addressed the issue of sexual harassment of women in the workplace and addressed “Gender Equality.” In this instance, the PIL was filed as a due to the vicious and heartless gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker.

One day at work, Bhanwari Devi, who worked closely with people in her community to prevent child marriages, was assisting a family in preventing the marriage of an infant girl.
She consequently had a horrific rape in front of her husband at the hands of five guys from the upper class. Bhanwari Devi and her husband sought assistance from the police, but they declined to make a formal complaint and carry out a comprehensive investigation because of political pressure.

This was not the only obstacle she had to overcome to obtain justice; when she sought medical care at the hospital, the physicians merely noted her age and refused to include the word “rape” in her report.

Despite all these obstacles, Bhanwari Devi and her husband remained hopeful and went to the Rajasthani trial court. Because there was no hard evidence against the five accused individuals and it was difficult for the court to accept that her husband was confined during the rape and did nothing, the trial court cleared all five of the accused males in the instances.

ISSUES:

• Did the trial court’s ruling in Bhanwari Devi’s case violate her fundamental liberties as protected by articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
• The question of gender equality and sexual harassment experienced by women in the workplace was the other matter that the apex had to decide?
• If there is a role or obligation for the employer in sexual harassment situations?

CASES PRESENTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES:

The petitioners argued that numerous women were silenced due to social pressure and shame, asserting that Bhanwari Devi was not the sole woman to endure such a dreadful crime.

Furthermore, the complainant mentioned before the trial that while women may submit an official complaint, they do not qualify for any significant remedy since India does not have official laws or regulations addressing issues such as workplace abuse of women.

The petitioner urged the court to compel the Indian government to reference international convention articles and create explicit regulations addressing issues like workplace harassment against women and gender equality.

The petitioners also cited the ruling in “Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa,”[7] in which the court used an ICCPR clause to bolster its conclusion that “an enforceable right to compensation is not exotic to the concept of enforcement of a protected right,” which is different from the private remedy in torts and is a public law remedy under Article 32.

Therefore, there is no reason why these international treaties and standards cannot be used to the interpretation of the fundamental rights that are specifically protected by the Indian Constitution and that represent the core idea of gender equality in all areas of human endeavour.

The petitioner also cited the ruling in “Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh,” which stated that where there is a legal gap or a specific statute is missing with respect to a legal matter, the court may resort to international agreements, if they do not conflict with people’s fundamental rights.

JUDGEMENT:

Considering the writ petition brought by Vishakha, the victim of the crime, Chief Justice J.S. Verma issued the ruling in Vishakha’s case alongside Justices Sujata Manihar and B.N. Kripal. The court observed that all professions, trades, or occupations must provide a safe working environment for their employees, in line with the fundamental rights specified in Articles 14[2], 19[3](1)(g), and 21[4] of the Indian Constitution. It obstructed both the right to live and the right to a dignified life. The establishment of a secure workplace was the essential requirement.

The Court determined that the right of women to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace is fundamental. It also highlighted various important guidelines that employees should follow to avoid sexual harassment of women in the workplace. The court further suggested establishing suitable protocols for addressing issues related to sexual harassment in the workplace. The main objective of the Supreme Court was to ensure equal rights for all genders and to stop discrimination towards women.[8]

After the Supreme Court’s ruling to clearly define sexual harassment, any physical interaction or behaviour, the exhibition of pornography, offensive remarks or misconduct, or any expression of sexual interest or preference towards women will be categorized as sexual harassment.

CHALLENGES:

The Vishakha Guidelines, a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court, attempted to address the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. However, the recommendations have drawn criticism for a variety of reasons. Some have argued that the guidelines do not go far enough in safeguarding victims of sexual harassment, while others have voiced concerns about the standards’ inappropriate application and enforcement.

One of the main barriers to the Vishakha Guidelines’ adoption has been employers’ and employees’ ignorance of them. Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs), which can be difficult to establish and maintain in businesses, are also required under the standards. There has also been criticism of the ICCs’ efficacy in investigating allegations of sexual harassment.

CONCLUSION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India significantly aided in the emancipation of women by issuing regulations to stop sexual harassment in the workplace. On a more somber note, this case has really shed some light on one of the most sensitive and significant issues facing women. Sexual harassment still occurs and is a menace to women, if I compare the situation then and now. Even after the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act was passed eight years ago, many more incidences of sexual harassment remain unreported, even though there are a few documented occurrences.

Every step of the Act, which was designed to be very victim-friendly, presents challenges for the victim. Some important components have been missed, and many sections are invalid and counterproductive.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India upheld the important principles of equality and liberty in the Vishaka judgment. The government should pass strict laws prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace because women make up a significant share of the working population in our country. Therefore, it is both morally and legally necessary to provide a safer workplace so that women can flourish. It is the most significant and landmark case in the history of sexual harassment of women. To protect women in the workplace and set standards for addressing cases involving sexual harassment at work, the Indian Supreme Court created the Vishaka guidelines, which have since been superseded by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.[9]

 

REFERENCES

[1] (1997) 6 SCC 241

[2] Article 14 of the Constitution of India

[3] Article 15 of the Constitution of India

[4] Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India

[5] Article 21 of the Constitution of India

[6] Section 32- (1) the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.

[7] https://lawfullegal.in/custodial-death-and-police-accountability-in-india-legal-framework-challenges-and-judicial-response

[8] https://thelegallock.com/case-brief-vishaka-v-state-of-rajasthan-1997-6-scc-241

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