Case brief of "Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors 1997" by Arbuda Singh

By Arbuda Singh, 

3rd Year/6th Semester, 

BBA LLB, 

Mody University

 

Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August 1997

Citation: (1997) 6 SCC 241

Bench: Sujata V. Manohar,Cji, B. N. Kirpal

Abstract

Historically, the notion of "women empowerment" has its roots in grassroots movements in the United States of America throughout the 1960s and 1970s, particularly in the context of civil rights and women's rights. As a result, in countries such as India, women were given the status of Goddesses who were worshipped as Laxmi, Durga, and Parvati, but the situation is no longer the same. As a result, today's self-sufficient women, even those in high-ranking positions, suffer workplace harassment, inequity, and sexism. Not only that, but for a long time, the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace has been a focal point of the women's movement. It is a well-known truth that women's liberation and safety and security are critical for the entire country, but this entire picture was shattered following the terrible occurrence known as the Vishaka Case, which occurred in the year 1992. After that, the Supreme Court issued Vishaka rules to prevent women from being sexually harassed at work.

 

Facts

●      It all started in 1985, when a woman called Bhanwari Devi, who worked as a village-level social worker, commonly known as Saathin, for the Rajasthan government's Women's Development Project (WDP), was raped brutally in 1992.

●      Devi used to work directly with families to avoid weddings as part of her profession, and she would also report cases to the police when there was an emergency.

●      With all of this, Devi reported a family from the Gurjar community to the police because of a planned marriage of a one-year-old baby.

●      As a result, the family revolted against Devi, not only to ostracize her from the community but also to ostracize her from the Gujjar community, while she was at work.

●      Despite the police and physicians' preferential and disrespectful treatment, she was adamant about fighting for justice, so she filed a complaint against the accused. In the Trial Court, however, the accused was acquitted due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

●      Devi's quest for justice was also supported by a number of social groups and female activists. As a result, women's rights activists filed a Public Interest Litigation to address the need to safeguard women from sexual harassment at work.

 

Cited Articles

●      Article 32 of The Constitution Of India;

●      Article 253 of The Constitution Of India;

●      Article 11 of The Constitution Of India;

●      Article 51 of The Constitution Of India;

●      Article 73 of The Constitution Of India

 

Cases Cited

●      Dr. Punita K. Sodhi vs Union Of India And Ors.;

●      Dr.P.Samy B.V.Sc vs The Commissioner Of Animal;

●      Dr. Duraisamy Baskaran, vs Chairman Md, Gail India Ltd.;

●      Radhika P. vs Mahatma Gandhi University;

●      Dr. Punita K. Sodhi vs Union Of India & Ors.; 

 

Issues

The Supreme Court looked into the case, which emphasized the problems of Gender Inequality, outraging women's modesty, workplace sexual harassment, and rape as serious societal issues. As a result, there is violence towards women.

 

Judgment

“Each occurrence results in a breach of the fundamental right to ‘Gender Equality,' and hence the ‘Right to Life and Liberty...' If a legal instrument of writ is to be effective in such a situation, it must be accompanied by preventative instructions, since the violation of essential rights might be a recurrent development. The right to work in any activity, trade, or profession is contingent on the availability of a safe working environment. The general assembly, and therefore the administration, has the first duty for ensuring such "safety" and dignity by proper laws, and thus the development of a system for social control..."

 

The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that workplace sexual harassment is a violation of women's human rights, specifically:

 

India's Constitution

Equality before the law (Article 14)

●      Article 15: Discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth is prohibited.

●      Article 19 (1)(g): Right to exercise one's profession or engage in any employment, trade, or business Article 21: Right to life and liberty

The Court also mentioned India's acceptance of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which outlaws employment discrimination and sets explicit governmental duties to eliminate it:

●      Article 11(1)(a, f): The right to work, as well as the right to health and safety in the workplace, including the protection of the reproductive function.

●      Article 24: State’s parties agree to take all necessary national measures to realize the rights established in the present Convention General Recommendation No. 19: On the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

In the absence of sufficient domestic law to address workplace sexual harassment, the Court took steps to enforce gender equality and non-discrimination in line with global human rights norms and standards.

 

Vishaka Guidelines-:

In its decision, the Court outlined a series of rules for employers, as well as other responsible individuals or organizations, to follow in order to avoid sexual harassment right away. These recommendations were to be deemed law until suitable legislation was produced, according to Article 141 of the Constitution: -

 

●      Unwelcome sexually determined conduct such as physical sexual touch, sexual favor, sexual comments, pornographic content, and verbal harassment are all examples of sexual harassment. Sexually explicit nonverbal behavior.

●      Sexual harassment in the workplace should always be –understood, documented, and disseminated.

●      When sexual harassment occurs that amounts to a particular legal offense, the employer should take action by filing a complaint with the proper authority.

●      For redressel of the complaint, an effective preventative system should be developed.

 

Conclusion

The Vishakha decision is one of the most brilliant pieces of legislation the court has ever passed since its establishment. Because of the gravity of the situation, the court went straight to work, violating all of the constitution's limits and establishing standards to ensure that no such harassment goes unpunished.

 

In the lack of local legislation, the court did not hesitate to consult international law on the topic (CEDAW). In a combined reading of art. 253 and entry 14 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule, the Supreme Court recognized authority for such a reference.

 

Along with its relevance, the Vishakha decision is also logical in that it does not put undue pressure on the employer to create a redress mechanism.

The ruling has simply instructed the employer to do what appears to be acceptable in order to uphold the fundamental ideals of equality and liberty. The decision cannot be described as one in which the court oversteps its bounds unreasonably (Judicial Overreach), but rather as the finest example of judicial activism.