Vishaka Case (1997)
– Sexual Harassment and Fundamental Rights
Background of the Case
The case arose from the brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, while she was performing her official duties.
At the time:
- There was no specific domestic law dealing with sexual harassment at the workplace
- Existing provisions of the Indian Penal Code were inadequate to address the issue
A group of women’s rights organisations, under the banner Vishaka, approached the Supreme Court through a Public Interest Litigation.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Does sexual harassment at the workplace violate Fundamental Rights?
- Can the Court lay down binding guidelines in the absence of legislation?
- What are the duties of employers towards working women?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court delivered a path-breaking verdict.
(a) Sexual Harassment Violates Articles 15 and 21
The Court held that:
- Sexual harassment of women at the workplace violates:
- Article 15 – Equality and non-discrimination
- Article 21 – Right to life with dignity
Thus: A safe working environment is an essential part of the right to life.
(b) Employer’s Duty – Public and Private
The Court ruled that:
It is the duty of the employer or person in charge of → Public institutions or, Private workplaces → To prevent sexual harassment
This extended constitutional responsibility beyond the State.
(c) Vishaka Guidelines Laid Down
In the absence of legislation, the Court issued binding guidelines, known as the Vishaka Guidelines, which were to:
- Have the force of law
- Remain operative until Parliament enacted suitable legislation
Key features included:
- Definition of sexual harassment
- Preventive steps by employers
- Creation of complaint committees with female representation
- Time-bound redressal mechanism
(d) Use of International Conventions
The Court relied upon:
- CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women)
It held that:
- International conventions can be used to interpret Fundamental Rights
- As long as they do not conflict with domestic law
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Expanded Article 21 to include workplace dignity
- Reinforced gender equality as a constitutional mandate
- Validated judicial law-making in exceptional circumstances
- Strengthened PIL jurisprudence
Impact of the Judgement
(a) Filling the Legislative Vacuum
- The Vishaka Guidelines functioned as law for over 15 years
- They governed both public and private sectors
(b) Enactment of the 2013 Act
Eventually, Parliament enacted:
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
This Act:
- Gave statutory backing to many Vishaka principles
- Established Internal Complaints Committees
- Extended protection to domestic workers
Place in Constitutional Evolution
| Aspect | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Gender justice | Constitutionalised |
| Article 21 | Dignity at workplace |
| Judicial activism | Legitimate & necessary |
Summary
The Vishaka Case (1997) held that sexual harassment at the workplace violates Articles 15 and 21, imposed duties on employers, issued the Vishaka Guidelines to fill a legislative vacuum, and paved the way for the 2013 POSH Act.