Vishakha v State of Rajasthan (1997) | Supreme Court

Posted by

Lexful

On December 30, 2025

This Case Analysis is written by Hitesh Bhootra, he is a 3rd-year LL.B. student at Aishwarya College of Education and Law. He also serves as an author at Lexful Legal.

AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3011

Date: August 13, 1997

Bench: Chief Justice of India, Sujata V. Manohar, B. N. Kirpal

Jurisdiction: Writ Petition (Mandamus Writ)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Relevant Provisions and Statutes

Constitution Of India

Article 14 – Equality before the law
Article 19 – tells about the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.
Article 21 – tells to Protection of life and personal liberty
Article 15 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth
Article 32 – tells Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
Article 42 – Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief
Article 51(c) – relates to Promotion of international peace and security
Article 141 – relates to the law declared by the Supreme Court to be binding on all courts

The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
Section 2(d) – relates to Human Rights

Indian Penal Code – some Specific Offences

Industrial Employment Act, 1946
Standing Orders

Background of the Case:

Vishakha’s case is one of the landmark judgments.
This case had been started in the small village of Rajasthan.
Bhanwari Devi who was working as a Saathin.
Saathin is basically a woman community worker who works as an NGO for social welfare.
It works under the Government of India (Rajasthan).
As a part of the NGO, her duties are to spread awareness related to societal problems which also included child marriage.
While working for the NGO, she tried to prevent a child marriage of a one-year-old girl from her village.
But everyone was against her intervention in that child marriage.
People thought that she was interfering with the traditional practices.
She was having threats to stop interfering or they would do something heinous with her.
But she continued to perform her duty as a social worker.
As she had faced the consequences of her daring efforts.
In 1992, she was brutally gang-raped by five men from her village in front of her husband.
They did this heinous crime for revenge.
This crime took place when she was performing her duty as a social worker.
This is directly connected to the assault at the workplace.
Bhanwari Devi reported this crime at the local police station.
However, the response from the police was so delayed and biased.
There was also in the investigation process, which included medical examination and evidence.
For these lapses in administrative work, the trial court acquitted the rapists.
But this acquittal had objectified the legal system, which is duty-bound for the protection of women and gives proper remedies.
A specific law was absent regarding sexual harassment at workplace.
A group of social workers and NGOs under the name of Vishakha had filed a writ petition under Article 32, as it was a violation of their fundamental rights.
The petition was filed not only because of the injustice with Bhanwari Devi but also to show that this is a larger issue in society, that women are not safe at their workplaces, even.
This petition was filed for specific legislation on sexual harassment at workplace.

Issues before the Supreme Court:

Whether the sexual harassment of a woman at the workplace comes under the violation of their fundamental rights under the Constitution of India?
Whether the Supreme Court can give any specific guidelines on such a type of harassment until the proper legislation comes on it?

Arguments

Petitioner Side:

The petitioner humbly submits that sexual harassment at the workplace is a violation of women’s basic rights, which are fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.
The petitioner submits that whenever a woman is harassed at her workplace, she is not treated equally, so it is a violation of Article 14 – Right to equality before law.
Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination based on gender, which is also a violation of Article 15 of the Indian Constitution.
If a woman is not safe at the workplace, it raises a difficulty to work freely and confidently, just because they are women.
Such sexual harassment violates a woman’s right to work and earn a livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
Such harassment also violates Article 21, which gives the right to live and work with dignity. It directly harms the dignity of a woman, her mental peace and safety.
There was no specific law in Indian legislation at that time to deal with such harassment at the workplace, so working women were unprotected.
They also gave an idea of CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) that the Indian Government is duty-bound to protect women from discrimination.
The petitioner requested that the Supreme Court consider sexual harassment at workplace as a violation of fundamental rights and frame guidelines for the safety of women at workplace until a proper and specific legislation is enacted.

Respondent Side:

The respondent argued that there was no specific law in Indian legislation at that time which deals with such type of harassment at workplace.
For this reason, they have claimed that the court should not create such new rules and regulations as making law is a duty of the legislature, not a duty of the judiciary.
They argued that the criminal law is already dealing with rape and assaults; therefore, there is no need to frame guidelines on sexual harassment at workplace.
Such matters can be handled under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. So, there is no necessary framework of guidelines needed.
The respondent further argued that the framing guidelines on it are a judicial overreach, as it is an interference with the powers of Parliament and state legislation.
On these grounds, the respondent argued that the Court must leave this matter to the legislature.

Judgement:

The honourable Supreme Court totally rejected the arguments and grounds of the Respondent side, which is stated and accepted the writ petition.
The court considered that sexual harassment at workplace is a violation of fundamental rights under Indian Constitution.

1. Article 14 which tells Rule of Law, right to equality.

2. Article 15 which prohibits discrimination based on gender.

3. Article 19 (1) (g)

4. Article 21, which tells Right to life with personal dignity.

The court considered that women cannot freely work in an unsafe workplace, and also that their dignity is an essential.
As there is no specific law on sexual harassment at workplace but the court is duty-bound to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen by Constitution of India.
The honourable Supreme Court also considered the CEDAW.
By using the power of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and Article 141, frame guidelines on sexual harassment at workplace and name them as the Vishakha guidelines.
These guidelines are mandatory to follow for all employers.
The court ordered that for any further such type of harassment, the state and employers will be held liable.

Ratio Decidendi

The workplace sexual harassment against women is an infringement and violation of the fundamental rights that are guaranteed by the Indian Constitution in Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21.
- The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 32 and Article 141, not only through the issuance of the guidelines but also with the proper law, ensures that these rights of women are protected

Impact of the Case

The impact of the Vishakha case had a huge impact on Indian legislation.

For the very first time, the Supreme Court has considered that sexual harassment at workplace is a clear violation of fundamental rights, not just a bad behaviour.
Guidelines in this case were the only protection of women at workplace for around 16 years. After that, Parliament has made a specific Act on it in 2013, which is The Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013 (POSH Act).