Vishaka
& Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997
Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011
Author: Verma
Bench: Cji, Sujata V. Manohar, B. N. Kirpal
PETITIONER:
............................................................................ “VISHAKA
AND ORS”
V.
RESPONDENT:
...........................................
“STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS”
DATE OF JUDGMENT- 13/08/1997
BENCH:
CJI VERMA,
SUJATA V. MANOHAR,
B. N. KIRPAL
CITATION:
AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011
(1997) 6 SCC 241
Introduction
This is a case about the
horrible crime of workplace sexual harassment against a woman. The Supreme
Court's decision marks a turning point in the history of sexual harassment.
Uninvited sexual favours or sexual gestures from one gender toward the other are
characterised as sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a violation of the
fundamental right to life enshrined under Article 14 of the Indian
Constitution, as well as the fundamental right to a dignified existence
included in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India
issued a significant verdict in Vishaka & Ors. v The State of Rajasthan
& Ors., which addresses the subject of sexual harassment of women at work.
The well-known Vishaka recommendations were issued by the Supreme Court,
requiring both the private and public sectors to establish processes to resolve
sexual harassment accusations.
Provisions of Law involved
Constitution of India:
Article 14 (right to equality), Article 15 (right to
non-discrimination), Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise one's profession),
Article 21 (right to life)
Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW):
Article 11 ([State] takes all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in the field of employment), Article 24 (right to
life) ([State shall] undertake to adopt all necessary measures at the national
level aimed at achieving the full realization)
Issues
1. Is workplace sexual
harassment a violation of the right to gender equality as well as the right to
life and liberty?
2. Is the employer
accountable if an employee is subjected to sexual harassment?
3. What if workplace
sexual harassment situations were subject to established guidelines?
4. Is workplace sexual
harassment a violation of a woman's fundamental rights?
Facts of the case
Bhanwari Devi, a woman
from Bhateri, Rajasthan, began working for the Rajasthan Government's Women's
Development Project in 1985. (WDP). Bhanwari took on a problem based on the
government's campaign against child marriage in 1992, according to her job.
Despite understanding that child marriage was prohibited, the villagers were
oblivious of the issue and encouraged it. Meanwhile, Ram Karan Gurjar's family
has decided to have a similar ceremony for his young daughter. Bhanwari tried
unsuccessfully to persuade the family not to execute the marriage, but she was
unsuccessful. The family gave its blessing to the union. The sub-divisional
officer and the DSP went to the wedding on May 5, 1992, and interrupted
it. The wedding was held the next day, and no police action was taken
against the couple. The locals later realised that Bhanwari Devi's acts were
the cause of the police visits. Bhanwari Devi and her family were boycotted as
a result, and she lost her job. To exact retribution, five men, four from the
Gurjar family and one accomplice, attacked Bhanwari Devi's husband and gang-raped
her on September 22, 1992. The police had done everything they could to avoid
filing a complaint against the defendant, causing the inquiry to be delayed.
Bhanwari Devi was able to register a complaint despite the harsh criticism she
had received because of her unwavering commitment to seek justice. The medical
exam has been postponed for another 52 hours.
The examiner, on the
other hand, made no mention of a rape commission in the report, instead
focusing on the victim's age. Despite the absence of substantial evidence and
with the help of local MLA Dhanraj Meena, all of the accused were acquitted in
the Trial Court. Many female activists and organisations who backed Bhanwari
were outraged by the acquittal. These organisations teamed together to pursue
justice, and a Public Interest Litigation was filed as a result (PIL). The
petition was filed by "Vishaka," a women's rights organisation. It
emphasises on the enjoyment of women's essential rights in the workplace under
Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution of 1950, as well as the
necessity to protect workplace sexual harassment.
Contentions
Arguments
given by Petitioner
The 'Vishaka' group, which included diverse women's rights
activists, NGOs, and other social activists, filed a writ petition seeking a
writ of mandamus. They argue that indecent acts of sexual harassment of women
at work breach the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, 19,(1)(g),
and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners raised the Hon'ble court's
attention to a flaw in the Act that prevents women from working in a safe
atmosphere. They asked the Supreme Court to establish norms for combating
workplace sexual harassment.
Arguments
given by Respondent
In this instance, the respondent's counsel did something
unique by having the learned solicitor general speak on their behalf and assist
the petitioner. The respondent's counsel asked the court to identify an
effective approach to stop sexual harassment in the workplace for women, as
well as to provide rules for its prevention.
DEFECTS OF THE LAW
Vishaka Guidelines:
1. Employers should take preventative measures, such as
specifically forbidding harassment and providing sanitary, comfortable, and
healthful working environments.
2. Appropriate disciplinary action should be conducted in the
workplace if administrative regulations are broken.
3. The employer is required to disclose the submitted offences
to the authorities if they fall under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. An organisation should have a redressal body to deal with
harassment. Regardless of whether the demonstration is illegal under the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, or another law, this should be done. More than half of the
members of such a committee must be women, and the chairperson must also be a
woman, as well as a counselling facility. A yearly report on the
committee's progress must be sent to the government.
5. The business should take the necessary actions to increase
awareness about the problem.
6. Sexual harassment is defined as any unwanted sexually
determined behaviour (whether directly or indirectly), such as: a) physical
contact and advances; b) a demand or request for sexual favours; c) sexually
coloured remarks; d) pornography viewing; and e) any other unwanted physical,
verbal, or nonverbal sexual conduct.
7. None of the rights granted by the Protection of Human Rights
Act of 1993 will be jeopardised by these rules.
8. Government and public sector organisations should incorporate
sexual harassment prohibitions in their conduct and discipline policies, as
well as suitable sanctions for offenders. The Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act of 1946 should be amended to include the prohibitions indicated
above.
9. Sexual harassment issues must be addressed through
employer-employee meetings. The employer must take the appropriate steps to
raise awareness of the problem.
Rational
Working women's
fundamental rights, as enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of India's
constitution, were infringed. There is a stronger attempt to guard against such
infractions as a result of increased awareness and attention on gender justice.
The horrible incident illustrates the dangers that a professional woman may
face, as well as the depravity to which sexual harassment can develop. The
Supreme Court of India recognised the need of a statute to combat sexual
harassment and create a safe working environment for women. Sections 354 and
354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, were to be referred to in any case of sexual
harassment.
The Supreme Court
recognised the significance of implementing appropriate and effective
legislation to combat sexual harassment as a result of this. As a result, such
infractions are subject to the remedy for the enforcement of women's basic
rights established by Article 32.
As a result, the Court's
capacity to enforce fundamental rights under Article 32, as well as the Union's
executive power, must rise to the challenge of protecting working women from
sexual harassment and improving their basic rights in measurable ways. The
Indian government also agreed to develop and implement a national policy on
women that will guide and inform action in all situations and sectors; to
establish a Commission for Women's Rights to act as a public protector of women's
moral rights; and to institutionalise a public position medium to cover
Platform for Action perpetration, among other things.
Inference
In the Vishaka Case, the
Supreme Court of India took a crucial step toward women's emancipation by
giving recommendations to address workplace sexual harassment. In the absence
of domestic law, the Hon'ble Court relied on a variety of international
agreements and laws, then tied them to the law of the land, resulting in the
creation of an altogether new legal system. The Indian judiciary's attempts to
protect women in this case are admirable. The Supreme Court's Vishaka
Guidelines created a robust legal platform for all women to confront sexual
harassment.
The Vishaka case changed
people's perceptions on sexual harassment charges, which were previously
dismissed as minor. The lady finally gets her ideal job at a software
firm. The woman is the victim of sexual harassment for some reason. She
considers going to the police station to make a report against the harasser, but
she decides against it. She is concerned that if she complains, her family
members may prevent her from continuing to work for the company. On the basis
of the Vishaka case, one might conclude that, while India endeavoured to
address the social problems of gender discrimination and sexual harassment by
giving employment and legal protections, it failed to accept social
responsibility for ensuring an equally safe working environment. Despite
the fact that the law protects women, many cases of sexual harassment occur on
a regular basis and go unreported.
CONCLUSION
The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India affirmed the constitutional ideals of equality and liberty in
the Vishaka judgement. Many women have been moved by the passage of the law
against sexual harassment to speak out against the misery they endured in
silence until 1997. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, was based on the Vishaka Guidelines.
The Vishaka Judgement
embodies the real spirit of judicial activism, and it has served as an
inspiration to other nations. However, Bhanwari Devi, the spark that sparked
the need for suitable legislation to protect women from sexual harassment, is
still waiting for justice two decades later.
It's important to remember
that, despite having such comprehensive legislation in place to protect women,
India still ranks as the most dangerous country for women. Perhaps it is time
to ask ourselves if the law or we are the ones who must be held accountable.
0 Comments