Vishakha and others v. State of Rajasthan

Last updated

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
Emblem of the Supreme Court of India.svg
Court Supreme Court of India
Full case nameVishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Decided13 August 1997
Citation(s)AIR 1997 SC 3011
Case history
Subsequent action(s)Superseded by The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("Sexual Harassment Act").
Court membership
Judges sittingJ.S. Verma (Chief Justice), Sujata V. Manohar, B.N. Kirpal
Case opinions
Decision byJ.S. Verma (Chief Justice)

Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where various women's groups led by Naina Kapur and her organisation, Sakshi filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the state of Rajasthan and the central Government of India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition was filed after Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, was brutally gang raped for stopping a child marriage. [1]

Contents

The court decided that the consideration of "International Conventions and norms are significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to work with human dignity in Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards against sexual harassment implicit therein." The petition, resulted in what are popularly known as the Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 given by a bench of J. S. Verma (then C.J.I)., Sujata Manohar and B. N. Kirpal, provided the basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. It is seen as a significant legal victory for women's groups in India. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Background

In India, before 1997, there were no formal guidelines for how an incident involving sexual harassment at workplace should be dealt by an employer. Women experiencing sexual harassment at workplace had to lodge a complaint under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code that deals with the 'criminal assault of women to outrage women's modesty' and Section 509 that punishes an individual or individuals for using a 'word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman'. These sections left the interpretation of 'outraging women's modesty' to the discretion of the police officer. [5]

During the 1990s, Rajasthan state government employee Bhanwari Devi who tried to prevent child marriage as part of her duties as a worker of the Women Development Programme was raped by the landlords of the gujjar community. The feudal patriarchs who were enraged by her (in their words: "a lowly woman from a poor and potter community") 'guts' decided to teach her a lesson and raped her repeatedly. [6] [ clarification needed ] The rape survivor did not get justice from Rajasthan High Court and the rapists were allowed to go free. This inspired several women’s groups and non-governmental organizations to file a petition in the Supreme Court under the collective platform of Vishaka [7]

This case brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of India, "the absence of domestic law occupying the field, to formulate effective measures to check the evil of sexual harassment of working women at all work places."

Judgement

In 1997, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines in the Vishakha case, pending formal legislation, for dealing with sexual harassment of women at the workplace. Vishaka.pdf
In 1997, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines in the Vishakha case, pending formal legislation, for dealing with sexual harassment of women at the workplace.

In 1997, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment laying down guidelines to be followed by establishments in dealing with complaints about sexual harassment. "Vishaka Guidelines" were stipulated by the Supreme Court of India, in Vishaka and others v State of Rajasthan case in 1997, regarding sexual harassment at workplace. The court stated that these guidelines were to be implemented until legislation is passed to deal with the issue. [7]

The court decided that the consideration of "International Conventions and norms are significant for the purpose of interpretation of the guarantee of gender equality, right to work with human dignity in Articles 14, 15 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and the safeguards against sexual harassment implicit therein."

The court also defined sexual harassment as including such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) like physical contact and advances, a demand or request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, or any other unwelcome physical verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature. The court recognised that where any of these acts is committed in circumstances where under the victim of such conduct has a reasonable apprehension that in relation to the victim’s employment or work whether she is drawing salary, or honorarium or voluntary, whether in government, public or private enterprise such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem. The court noted that it was discriminatory when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that objecting to sexual harassment would disadvantage her in connection with her employment or work including recruiting or promotion or when it creates a hostile work environment. Thus, sexual harassment need not involve physical contact. Any act that creates a hostile work environment — be it by virtue of cracking lewd jokes, verbal abuse, circulating lewd rumours etc. — counts as sexual harassment. [8] The creation of a hostile work environment through unwelcome physical verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature may consist not of a single act but of pattern of behaviour comprising many such acts.

Noting that in some cases, the psychological stigma of reporting the conduct of a co-worker might require a great deal of courage on the part of the victim and they may report such acts after a long period of time. The guidelines suggest that the compliance mechanism should ensure time-bound treatment of complaints, but they do not suggest that a report can only be made within a short period of time since the incident occurred. Often, the police refuse to lodge FIRs for sexual harassment cases, especially where the harassment occurred some time ago. [9]

Subsequent legislation

The Supreme Court of India's judgement only proposed guidelines to alleviate the problem of sexual harassment in 1997. India finally enacted its law on prevention of sexual harassment against female employees at the workplace. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("Sexual Harassment Act") has been made effective on 23 April 2013 by way of publication in the Gazette of India . [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

Sexual assault is an act in which one intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will. It is a form of sexual violence that includes child sexual abuse, groping, rape, drug facilitated sexual assault, and the torture of the person in a sexual manner.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual harassment</span> Unwanted sexual attention or advances

Sexual harassment is a type of harassment involving the use of explicit or implicit sexual overtones, including the unwelcome and inappropriate promises of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. Sexual harassment can be physical and/or a demand or request for sexual favors, making sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, and any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment includes a range of actions from verbal transgressions to sexual abuse or assault. Harassment can occur in many different social settings such as the workplace, the home, school, or religious institutions. Harassers or victims can be of any gender.

In India, eve teasing is a euphemism, primarily occurring in English, used for public sexual harassment or sexual assault of women by men. The name "Eve" alludes to the Bible's creation story concerning Adam and Eve. Considered a problem related to delinquency in male youth, it is a form of sexual aggression that ranges in severity from sexually suggestive remarks, brushing in public places and catcalls, to groping.

The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is public interest litigation (PIL) or social action litigation (SAL). It refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. It is a relaxation on the traditional rule of locus standi. Before 1980s the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court began permitting cases on the grounds of public interest litigation, which means that even people who are not directly involved in the case may bring matters of public interest to the court. It is the court's privilege to entertain the application for the PIL.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span> Death penalty in India, its states and union territories

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in India</span> Overview of the status of women in India

The status of women in India has been subject to many changes over the time of recorded India's history. Their position in society deteriorated early in India's ancient period, especially in the Indo-Aryan speaking regions, and their subordination continued to be reified well into India's early modern period.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), is a US labor law case, where the United States Supreme Court, in a 9–0 decision, recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was the first of its kind to reach the Supreme Court and would redefine sexual harassment in the workplace.

Sexual harassment in education in the United States is an unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that interferes with an American student's ability to learn, study, work or participate in school activities. It is common in middle and high schools in the United States. Sexual or gender harassment is a form of discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Sexual harassment involves a range of behavior from mild annoyances to unwanted touching and, in extreme cases, rape or other sexual assault.

The Mathura rape case was an incident of custodial rape in India on 26 March 1972, wherein Mathura, a young tribal girl, was allegedly raped by two policemen on the compound of Desaiganj Police Station in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra. After the Supreme Court acquitted the accused, there was public outcry and protests, which eventually led to amendments in the Indian rape law via The Criminal Law Amendment Act 1983.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. S. Verma</span> 27th Chief Justice of India

Jagdish Sharan Verma was an Indian jurist who served as the 27th Chief Justice of India from 25 March 1997 to 18 January 1998. He was the chairman of the National Human Rights Commission from 1999 to 2003, and chairman of the Justice Verma Committee Report on Amendments to Criminal Law after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. He remains one of India's most highly regarded Chief Justices and eminent jurists in its history.

Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, and it is characteristically identified by its unlikelihood in terms of social and moral reasonableness. In the legal sense, these are behaviors that appear to be disturbing, upsetting or threatening. Traditional forms evolve from discriminatory grounds, and have an effect of nullifying a person's rights or impairing a person from benefiting from their rights. When these behaviors become repetitive, it is defined as bullying. The continuity or repetitiveness and the aspect of distressing, alarming or threatening may distinguish it from insult.

<i>Bawandar</i> 2000 Indian film

Bawandar is a 2000 Indian film, based on the true story of Bhanwari Devi, a rape victim from Rajasthan, India. The film depicts the personal trauma, public humiliation and legal injustice that Bhanwari Devi went through, while pursuing justice in the Indian courts.

Bhanwari Devi is an Indian social-worker from Bhateri, Rajasthan, who was gang raped in 1992 by men angered by her efforts to prevent a child marriage in their family. Her subsequent treatment by the police, and court acquittal of the accused, attracted widespread national and international media attention, and became a landmark episode in India's women's rights movement.

Workplace harassment is the belittling or threatening behavior directed at an individual worker or a group of workers.

A private attorney general or public interest lawyer is an informal term originating in common law jurisdictions for a private attorney who brings a lawsuit claiming it to be in the public interest, i.e., benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff, on behalf of a citizen or group of citizens. The attorney may, at the equitable discretion of the court, be entitled to recover attorney's fees if they prevail. The rationale behind this principle is to provide extra incentive to private attorneys to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large. Private attorney general suits are commonly, though not always, brought as class actions in jurisdictions that permit the certification of class action lawsuits.

Bhanwari Devi was a 36-year-old auxiliary nurse midwife.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013</span> Act of the Parliament of India

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 is a legislative act in India that seeks to protect women from sexual harassment at their place of work. It was passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 September 2012. It was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 26 February 2013. The Bill got the assent of the President on 23 April 2013. The Act came into force from 9 December 2013. This statute superseded the Vishaka Guidelines for Prevention Of Sexual Harassment (POSH) introduced by the Supreme Court (SC) of India. It was reported by the International Labour Organization that very few Indian employers were compliant to this statute. Most Indian employers have not implemented the law despite the legal requirement that any workplace with more than 10 employees need to implement it. According to a FICCI-EY November 2015 report, 36% of Indian companies and 25% among MNCs are not compliant with the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013. The government has threatened to take stern action against employers who fail to comply with this law.

Founded in 2001, Alliance Against Sexual Harassment (AASHA) is an alliance of non-government organizations (NGOs) including Action Aid Pakistan, Bedari, Working Women's Support Centre, Working Women Association, Federal Women's Welfare Agency, Conscience Promoters, Pakistan Institute of Labour Education & Research, and Working Women Organisation. AASHA is a non-governmental organization operating in Lahore and Karachi which raises awareness regarding sexual harassment and lobbies the policymakers to take action against it.

In Malaysia, sexual harassment, as defined by the Employment Act 1955Archived 11 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine, is “any unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, whether verbal, non-verbal, visual, gestural or physical, directed at a person which is offensive, humiliating or a threat to their well-being”. The Act does not distinguish between male and female or employer and employee. As such, sexual harassment can be committed by a female against a male, or an employee against an employer.

Saurabh Ajay Gupta is a Advocate-on-Record in Supreme Court of India. He is also the additional advocate general for Government of Chhattisgarh in Supreme Court. Formerly he has held position of additional advocate general for Government of Punjab, India in Supreme Court for around seven years.

References

  1. 1 2 "Sexual harassment at workplace". The Indian Express. 26 January 2010. Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  2. "Vishaka & Ors vs State of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997".
  3. "Vishaka & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others". www.legitquest.com. Retrieved 20 November 2020.
  4. "Vishaka and others V. State of Rajasthan and others" (PDF).
  5. "Explained: Vishakha judgment on sexual harassment at workplace". 22 November 2013.
  6. Samhita (2001). The Politics of Silence. Kolkata.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  7. 1 2 "A brief history of the battle against sexual harassment at the workplace". Archived from the original on 11 July 2011. Retrieved 7 December 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  8. FP Staff (23 February 2011). "Sexual harassment and Vishaka guidelines: All you need to know". Firstpost. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  9. TNN (7 May 2013). "Most harassment cases go unreported". The Times of India . Archived from the original on 21 November 2013. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  10. "India's New Labour Law - Prevention Of Sexual Harassment At The Workplace - Employment and HR - India". Mondaq . Retrieved 21 November 2013.