This Article Is Written By Manpreet Kaur From Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab

Table of Contents

Introduction

Name Of The Case:

Vishaka & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 241.

(Landmark Case On Sexual Harassment)

Citation: AIR (1997), 6 SCC 241

Date Of Judgment: 13 August 1997

Name Of The Petitioner: Vishaka & Ors

Name of the Respondents: State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice J.S. Verma, Justice Sujata V. Manohar, and Justice B.N. Kirpal.

Name of the Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India

Subject Matter Concerning the Case:

Sexual Harassment of a Woman at Her Workplace.

Facts of the Case:

The Women’s Development Project (WDP), which was overseen by the State Government of Rajasthan, recruited Bhanwari Devi of Bhateri, Rajasthan, as a “Saathin,” or grassroots worker, to end child marriages in that area.
She was working at the office someday to prevent the marriage of a 9-month-old daughter in Ramkaran Gujjar’s (Thakur) household. Sadly, the family falsely accused her of degrading them, and even after a lot of efforts from Bhanwari, the family succeeded in getting the infant married off the next day.
The five men, Ram Sukh Gujjar, Gyarsa Gujjar, Ram Karan Gujjar, Badri Gujjar, and Shravan Sharma, four of whom belong to the Gujjar family described earlier, conspired to get revenge before attacking Bhanwari Devi’s husband. She knocked him out cold, and all five of the men grabbed her viciously.
It didn’t help that she went to the police station; she was told to leave her lehenga there as proof of her medical records. Bhanwari Devi complained to the police station, but her search for justice was never over. There was a fifty-two-hour delay in the medical examination. However, the examiner just mentioned the victim’s age in the report and did not refer to any rape commission.
The district and sessions court in Jaipur dismissed the case and found all five defendants not guilty in its ruling on November 15, 1995. However, after some time, the five judges were changed and the sixth judge rendered a verdict of not guilty, citing, among other things, the fact that Bhanwari’s husband could not be allowed to be seen when his wife was gang-raped
Under pressure from non-governmental organizations and women’s organizations, the state administration ultimately decided to appeal the ruling. The matter came to light after a report from Rajasthan Patrika went viral. In 2007, the Rajasthan High Court only convened one hearing on the matter because two of the defendants had already passed away.
This prompted four other organizations, including an NGO and women’s rights groups called “Vishaka,” to join forces and file a petition against this horrific gang rape. It placed particular emphasis on the implementation of women’s fundamental rights at work as guaranteed by articles 14,15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution and also brought up the issue is the necessity of shielding female employees from sexual harassment at work.

Issues of the Case:

The following are the issues in the case:

1. Determining if sexual harassment at work constitutes a breach of rights protected by Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

2. If there are no current laws that apply to the case, might the case nevertheless apply to international laws?

3. Is there any liability for sexual harassment committed against or by employees of the employer?

Arguments involve:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

On the issue of sexual harassment violating constitutional rights:

Sexual harassment in the workplace violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21.
The Right to equality under Article 14 is breached when only female employees are subject to harassment
The Right against discrimination under Article 15 on grounds of gender is violated since only women face this issue
Freedom to carry out a profession under Article 19(1)(g) is violated when hostile work conditions affect working.
The right to life and liberty under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity, which is impeded due to harassment.
These rights form part of basic human rights that cannot be violated per international treaties and customary international law.

On the applicability of laws:

Currently, no domestic laws specifically cover the issue of sexual harassment of working women or provide relief.
However, international laws and treaties signed by India, like CEDAW, can be used to frame legally binding preventive guidelines.
A written petition under Article 32 is permissible for enforcing fundamental rights. Mandamus must be accompanied by preventive guidelines to fill the legislative vacuum.

On liability of sexual harassment

Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, the employer is responsible for acts of sexual harassment committed by its employees in the course of their employment. This flows from the employer-employee relationship.
Employers must prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Any inaction to prevent such harassment will render them liable. They are bound to observe guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
Employers must be held strictly liable for any violation of guidelines meant for the prevention of sexual harassment. Monetary compensation must be awarded to affected employees.

Respondent’s Arguments:

On sexual harassment violating rights:

AG conceded violation of rights under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 due to recurrent sexual harassment of female employees.

On the applicability of laws:

In the absence of domestic laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, global treaties signed by India recognize it as a human rights violation.
recommended honorable court to frame appropriate guidelines for prevention.

On the liability of sexual harassment

The doctrine of vicarious liability generally applies to tortious acts by employees. Its application to criminal acts like sexual harassment with penal consequences needs to be examined.
Employers cannot be reasonably expected to be aware of all instances of harassment. Liability may only arise for inaction after adequate notice.
Compensation to affected employees must account for the delay in filing a complaint and the gravity of harassment before fixing liability on the employer to prevent misuse.

The Decision of the Court:

At the time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India noted that no laws had been put in place to provide a safe workplace for women or to shield them from sexual harassment. The Indian Penal Code, 1860’s Sections 354 and 354A, were to be reviewed in any case involving sexual harassment; nevertheless, these sections did not address the relevant clauses. This aided the Honorable Court in realizing the necessity of appropriate and potent legislation to address sexual harassment.

The Hon’ble Court referred to international treaties to proceed with the matter. It referred to the Beijing Statement of Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary in the Lawasia region to operate as a guardian of citizens’ rights and autonomously establish laws when none existed. The articles of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) were then cited by the Hon’ble Court. Them being:

1. The state must take all necessary steps to end discrimination against women in the workplace, according to Article 11(1)(a) and Article 11(1)(f).

2. According to Article 24, the state is required to take all the necessary national-level actions to bring about complete fulfillment.

3. The Supreme Court’s primary goal was to ensure that there was no discrimination against women in the workplace and that there was gender equality among all persons.

Definition of Sexual Harassment

Following this case, the Supreme Court clarified the definition of sexual harassment, making it clear that it includes:

· Any physical contact or behavior

· Display of pornography

· Any offensive remarks or misbehavior

· Any sexually motivated behavior toward women

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India established the Vishaka Guidelines—which were to be regarded as law as announced under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution—to stop sexual harassment in the workplace. These guidelines served as the foundation for the 2013 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act.

Vishaka Guidelines:

The Supreme Court released extensive directions on how to prevent sexual harassment of women at work in 1997 as part of the Vishaka judgment.

Every company is accountable for creating a secure workplace where every employee can advance and thrive. This means taking the required measures to safeguard the interests of female workers and make sure that sexual harassment is not occurring.
If a female employee is the victim of sexual harassment or other improper treatment, the employer is required to take appropriate disciplinary action. According to the rule, if an employer’s acts toward an employee amount to a crime covered by the Indian Penal Code, they must file a complaint.
The employer is required to take precautions to safeguard the witnesses and make sure they are not mistreated in the future.
Workplaces should have a strict process in place to guarantee that complaints are handled quickly and effectively.
The suggestions include that to ensure that employee complaints are handled appropriately and the proper course of action is taken in response to them, each organization must establish a complaint redressal committee.
An NGO or other third party should be involved to avoid pressure from the employer’s higher management.
This will ensure that, if sexually harassed women need to file a lawsuit and retain competent legal counsel, they receive financial help from their employers.
Additionally, the employer must promote awareness of sexual harassment and the protection of women at work. This can be done by alerting staff beforehand, hosting workshops, and coming up with other fun ways to enlighten female employees about their rights.
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Work (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 later superseded the Vishaka guidelines.

Critical Analysis:

First and foremost, the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s contributions are noteworthy. To be more serious, this case raises a significant issue that affects women, and it has shed some light on the subject. The judiciary’s recognition of the gaps in the law’s provisions and the necessity to come up with a remedy for the social ill also strengthens democracy in its purest form.

In the lack of adequate domestic legislation, the court’s decision to include the International Convention is without a doubt perfectly perfect. When comparing the circumstances then and now, it can be said that sexual harassment is still a threat to women. One of these events in a woman’s life has the potential to hurt every aspect of her life.

Even nine years after the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act of 2013 was passed, numerous instances of sexual harassment continue to be recorded, and many more go unreported.

For a law that has been up for debate for more than 16 years, the Act has not lived up to the lofty expectations that were placed on it. Many of the sections are self-defeating and nullifying, and some important details have been omitted. It has not been possible to obtain basic mechanisms like access to clinical counseling services, legal expertise, medical insurance related to the assault, employer compensation, and so on.

The Act, which was meant to be very victim-friendly, constantly presents challenges for the victim. Laws should be updated to reflect societal changes, especially in cases of sexual assault and exploitation.

In many cases, the inability to link the advancement of the law with societal advancement shows a lot about the degree of ignorance surrounding extremely humiliating behaviors like sexual harassment. The act should be thoroughly reviewed and any necessary corrections made. A strong and sincere effort on the part of the legislators is required in a seriously impacted society like India to address and eliminate this issue. Since independence, socially speaking, women’s empowerment has advanced significantly, but there are still many areas where it has to be accomplished.

This major gap can be linked to the mindset of gender stereotyping prevalent in society. The most effective way to achieve gender equality is for society to change its thinking. Then and only then can the banner of women’s empowerment be proudly displayed.

Conclusion:

India’s development goals are much closer to being accomplished, and the number of working women has increased. It is essential to recognize women’s right to be shielded from sexual harassment to uphold their human rights. All of this is a step in the right direction toward securing women’s autonomy, equality of opportunity, and the right to a respectable job.

It is necessary to address the systemic problem of workplace sexual harassment. It is critical to raise awareness among employers and workers about the various types of sexual harassment that can happen in the workplace, as well as about preventative measures and the legal justification for taking them.

Naturally, this case turned out to be one of the key turning points in the reformation of society in terms of women’s empowerment. It is important to respect the Court’s efforts in this decision to provide a definitive answer to the relevant question. This decision establishes an important precedent that has continued to this day.

In the end, all became evident when the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act was passed in 2013 and several essential terms were clarified. Nevertheless, even with such legislation in place, the social issue of sexual harassment at work persists.

But guys can also experience sexual harassment in a variety of situations. As a result, there is an urgent need for a new law that is more suitable to address these issues. All of them share the same conclusion: to handle every facet of this issue, additional pertinent legislation is desperately needed.