CASE BRIEF: VISHAKA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, (1997) 6 SCC 241

 

CASE NAME	Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241
CITATION	AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3011, 1997 AIR SCW 3043, 1997 LAB. I. C. 2890, 1997 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 749, 1997 LAB LR 991
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Chief Justice J.S. Verma, Justice Sujata V. Manohar and Justice B.N. Kirpal
PETITIONER	Vishaka and Others
RESPONDENT	State of Rajasthan and Others
DECIDED ON	13th August 1997

INTRODUCTION

The case of Vishaka & Ors. v/s state of Rajasthan addresses the problem of sexually harassing a woman at work. The Supreme Court's decision in this case is a milestone one in the history of sexual harassment. Uninvited or unwanted sexual favors or sexual gestures directed at another gender by one gender constitute sexual harassment. The person to whom it is done feels degraded, insulted, and offended. Numerous instances of homosexual labor harassment have been documented against employees of the same sex.  In India, sexual harassment is also known as "Eve Teasing." It can be identified by actions such as making sexually suggestive or usual jokes or remarks, touching someone without permission, requesting sex, sending sexually suggestive images, texts, or emails, or disparaging someone based only on their sex. Accordingly, sexual harassment infringes upon women's basic rights to gender equality, which are enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, as well as their fundamental right to life and the right to live a life of dignity, which is enshrined in Article 21 of the same constitution. Despite the fact that the Indian Constitution makes no mention of sexual harassment in the workplace.  Justice Arjit Pasayat beholds his lovely idea that "a rapist defiles the soul of a defenseless female, whereas a murderer destroys the victim's physical body." One of the social ills that the weaker segments of society must deal with is sexual harassment. Now is the time for high society members and those who engage in sexual harassment to learn about the rights and essential needs of women. If this peaceful volcano of rage erupts, it will cause great danger and destruction, with equally dire consequences as if it were an inactive volcano.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Bhanwari Devi was a social worker and activist in a Rajasthani hamlet. She was employed by a rural social development program run by the state government of Rajasthan that aimed to prevent child marriage in a hamlet. The daughter of Ramkaran Gujjars (Thakurs), who was only a baby, was less than a year old, and Bhanwari Devi was determined to prevent her marriage. Bhanwari Devi attempted to dissolve her young daughter's marriage as part of her responsibility. Bhanwari Devi was not forgiven or excused for her fault despite her pathetic attempts to prevent the marriage. She was subjected to or exposed to boycotts and social censure.  In front of her husband, she was gang raped by Ramkaran Gujjar and his five friends in September 1992. The male physician at the regular primary health center refused to examine her, and the physician in Jaipur merely confirmed her age in her medical report without mentioning that she had been raped. She was harassed by the women countable at the police station as well for the entire midnight. After midnight, the policeman asked her to leave her lehnga, which was proof of the incident, and return to her village. She was then left with her husband's bloodstained dhoti to wrap her body, which forced them to spend the entire night there. The accused were discharged by the Trail Court for not being guilty.  Women and non-governmental organizations filed a petition (PIL) before the Supreme Court of India after the High Court stated in its ruling that "it was a case of gang rape which was conducted out of revengeful situation."

ISSUES RAISED

Whether or not rules that prohibit sexual harassment of women in the workplace should be implemented?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

• The petitioners contended that many women were kept silent by social pressure and embarrassment and that Bhanwari Devi was not the only lady to suffer such a horrible crime. Additionally, the complainant stated prior to the trial that although women file an official complaint, they are not entitled to any substantive restitution because India lacks explicit laws and/or regulations on offenses like workplace violence. 
• The petitioner asked the court to pressure the Indian government to cite international convention articles and establish specific rules that would regulate matters such as workplace harassment of women and gender equality.
• As a public law remedy under Article 32, separate from the private remedy in torts, the petitioners mainly cited the case of "Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa," in which the court cited a clause in the ICCPR to support its opinion that "an enforceable right to compensation is not alien to the concept of enforcement of a guaranteed right." Therefore, there is no reason why these international conventions and standards cannot be applied to the interpretation of the fundamental rights explicitly stated in the Indian Constitution, which represent the core idea of gender equality in all areas of human endeavor.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

• In this matter, the learned Solicitor General did something out of the ordinary by supporting the petitioners while appearing on behalf of the respondents (with their assent). The respondent helped the Hon'ble Court develop the guidelines for preventing sexual harassment and identify an efficient way to stop it. The Hon'ble Court received assistance in handling the aforementioned case from Fali S. Nariman, its amicus curiae, as well as from Ms. Naina Kapur and Ms. Meenakshi. According to the respondents, states ought to include information regarding sexual harassment and the steps that must be taken to safeguard women against it as well as other forms of workplace violence in their reports.

JUDGMENT

In light of the writ suit filed by Vishakha, the crime's victim, Chief Justice J.S. Verma, delivered the verdict in Vishakha's case on behalf of Justices Sujata Manohar and B.N. Kripal. The court noted that every profession, trade, or occupation should offer a safe working environment for its employees in accordance with the fundamental rights outlined in Articles 14[2], 19[3](1)(g), and 21[4] of the Indian Constitution. It hindered both the right to life and the right to a respectable existence. The provision of a safe working environment at work was the fundamental prerequisite.  According to the Supreme Court, women have a basic right to be free from sexual harassment at work. It also outlined a number of crucial rules that workers should go by in order to prevent sexual harassment of women at work. The court also recommended having appropriate procedures for handling matters involving sexual harassment in the workplace. The Supreme Court's primary goals were to guarantee gender equality for all individuals and to prevent discrimination against women in the workplace.  Following this decision, the Supreme Court clarified the definition of sexual harassment. As a result, any physical contact or behavior, the display of pornography, offensive taunts or misbehavior, or any sexual desire or favor toward women will fall within the definition of sexual harassment. 

CONCLUSION

By releasing rules to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India made a significant contribution to women's emancipation. On a more serious note, this case has, in fact, provided some insight into one of the most delicate and important topics for women. If I compare the circumstances then and now, sexual harassment still exists and poses a threat to women. Several cases of sexual harassment are documented, but many more go unreported, even after the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act was passed eight years ago. The victim faces difficulties at every stage of the Act, which was intended to be extremely victim-friendly. Numerous parts are counterproductive and invalid, and some crucial elements have been overlooked. Essential mechanism procedures have not been made available, including the provision of legal expertise, clinical counseling facilities, medical insurance related to violence, employer compensation, and so forth. Any such behavior, whether direct or indirect, that falls under the description of sexual harassment, in my opinion, not only violates women's right to life but also impairs their dignity. It impairs both their physical and mental well-being. In the workplace, sexual harassment must be prevented, and gender equality must be established. The legislature must make a strong and sincere effort to confront and eradicate this issue in a society as badly impacted as India. The Act should be carefully examined by the legislature, and any shortcomings should be fixed. The final remedy is a genuine shift in society's perspective toward gender equality. This enormous disparity can be traced back to society's gender-stereotypical attitude. The feathers of women's empowerment can only then be proudly displayed. In the Vishaka ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India affirmed the fundamental values of equality and liberty. Since women make up a large portion of our nation's working population, the government ought to enact strong legislation against sexual harassment in the workplace. Therefore, creating a safer workplace for women to thrive is both morally and legally required. It is the most important and historic case in the history of situations involving women being sexually harassed. The Vishaka guidelines, which have since been replaced by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, are a set of rules established by the Indian Supreme Court to protect women in the workplace and establish standards for handling cases involving sexual harassment at work.