Writ Petn. (Criminal) Nos. 666-70 of 1992. Case: Vishaka and others Vs State of Rajasthan and others. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petn. (Criminal) Nos. 666-70 of 1992 |
| Counsel | For the Appellants: Mr. F. S. Nariman, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Meenakshi Arora and Ms. Niti Dixit, Advocates with him and For the Respondents: Mr. T. R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor General, Mr. Mukul Mudgal, Ms. Suvira Lal, Mr. C. V. S. Rao, Mr. K. S. Bhati and Mr. M. K. Singh, Advocates |
| Judges | J. S. Verma, C.J.I., Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar And B. N. Kirpal, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21, 32; Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 |
| Citation | AIR 1997 SC 3011, 1997 LabIC 2890, AIR 1997 SCW 3043, 1997 (3) AllCriLR 819, 1997 (5) AndhLT 14, 1998 (1) BLJR 228, 1997 (2) CorLA 321, 1997 CriLR 749 (SC), 1997 (3) Crimes 188; 1997 (3) CurCriR 126, 1997 (2) EastCriC 574, 1997 (77) FLR 297, JT 1997 (7) 384, 1998 (2) LLN 965, 1997 LLR 991, 1997 (2) MadLW 604 (Cri), 1997 (13) OCR 305, 1997 (3) RajLW |
| Judgement Date | August 13, 1997 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Verma, C.J.I.
-
This writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of working women under Arts. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India in view of the prevailing climate in which the violation of these rights is not uncommon. With the increasing awareness and emphasis on gender justice, there is increase in the effort to guard against such violations; and the resentment towards incidents of sexual harassment is also increasing. The present petition has been brought as a class action by certain social activists and NGOs with the aim of focussing attention towards this societal aberration, and assisting in finding suitable methods for realisation of the true concept of 'gender equality'; and to prevent sexual harassment of working women in all work places through judicial process, to fill the vacuum in existing legislation.
-
The immediate cause for the filing of this writ petition is an incident of alleged brutal gang rape of a social worker in a village of Rajasthan. That incident is the subject-matter of a separate criminal action and no further mention of it, by us, is necessary. The incident reveals the hazards to which a working woman may be exposed and the depravity to which sexual harassment can degenerate; and the urgency for safeguards by an alternative mechanism in the absence of legislative measures. In the absence of legislative measures, the need is to find an effective alternative mechanism to fulfil this felt and urgent social need.
-
Each such incident results in violation of the fundamental rights of 'Gender Equality' and the 'Right to Life and Liberty'. It is a clear violation of the rights under Arts. 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. One of the logical consequences of such an incident is also the violation of the victim's fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(g) 'to practice any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business'. Such violations, therefore, attract the remedy under Art. 32 for the enforcement of these fundamental rights of women. This class action under Art. 32 of the Constitution is for this reason. A writ of mandamus in such a situation, if it is to be effective, needs to be accompanied by directions for prevention; as the violation of fundamental rights of this kind is a recurring phenomenon. The fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade or profession depends on the availability of a "safe" working environment. Right to life means life with dignity. The primary responsibility for ensuring such safety and dignity through suitable legislation, and the creation of a mechanism for its enforcement, is of the legislature and the executive. When, however, instances of sexual harassment resulting in violation of fundamental rights of women workers under Arts. 14, 19 and 21 are brought before us for redress under Art. 32, an effective redressal requires that some guidelines should be laid down for the protection of these rights to fill the legislative vacuum.
-
The notice of the petition was given to the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India. The learned Solicitor General appeared for the Union of India and rendered valuable assistance in the true spirit of a Law Officer to help us find a proper solution to this social problem of considerable magnitude. In addition to Ms. Meenakshi Arora and Ms. Naina Kapur who assisted the Court with full commitment, Shri Fali S. Nariman appeared as Amicus Curiae and rendered great assistance. We place on record our great appreciation for every counsel who appeared in the case and rendered the needed assistance to the Court which has enabled us to deal with this unusual matter in the manner considered appropriate for a cause of this nature.
-
Apart from Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, we may refer to some other provisions which envisage judicial intervention for eradication of this social evil. Some provisions in the Constitution in addition to Arts. 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, which have relevance are:
Article 15:
"15. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.-
(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
(4) xxx xxx xxx
Article 42:
42. Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief - The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.
Article 51A:
51A. Fundamental duties.- It shall be the duty of every citizen of India;-
(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions,...
xxx xxx xxx
(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;
xxx xxx xxx
-
Before we refer to the international conventions and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Misc. Bench No. 3536 of 2015. Case: Satya Narain Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...conferred by the Constitution." Directions for Legislation In Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (1997) 6 SCC 241: (AIR 1997 SC 3011) the Supreme Court has discussed the violation of fundamental rights of "Gender Equality'' and the "Right to Life and Liberty" and has held t......
-
CWP No. 7013 of 2013. Case: Naresh Kumar Vs The State of H.P. & Ors., [Alongwith CWP Nos. 6996, 7012, 7014 to 7027, 7036, 7037, 7039, 7041 to 7045, 8216 and 9804 of 2013]. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field. (See also: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. AIR 1997 SC 3011; Common Cause v. Union of India, AIR 2008 SC 2116; and Destruction of Public and Private Properties v. State of A.P. AIR 2009 SC 2266) 18. T......
-
Special Civil Application Nos. 2984 of 2012 with 11532 and 11533 of 2013. Case: Mahila Utkarsh Trust Through its President and Ors. Vs Union of India Through Secretary and Ors.. High Court of Gujarat (India)
...Inspector of Factories & Boilers, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 665. 5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 241: (AIR 1997 SC 3011: 1997 Lab IC 6. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, reported in AIR 2008 SC 663. 7. Air India Cabin Crew Assocn v. Yeshawinee Merchant, ......
-
CM(M)--556/2018. Case: SWAMI RAMDEV Vs. JUGGERNAUT BOOKS PVT LTD & ORS. High Court of Delhi (India)
...and enforceable by courts in India.‖ 121. In terms of the verdict of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 and the verdict of this Court in Neelam Katara Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2003) ILR 2 Delhi 377, till the time there is a legislation made,......
-
Misc. Bench No. 3536 of 2015. Case: Satya Narain Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...conferred by the Constitution." Directions for Legislation In Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (1997) 6 SCC 241: (AIR 1997 SC 3011) the Supreme Court has discussed the violation of fundamental rights of "Gender Equality'' and the "Right to Life and Liberty" and has held t......
-
CWP No. 7013 of 2013. Case: Naresh Kumar Vs The State of H.P. & Ors., [Alongwith CWP Nos. 6996, 7012, 7014 to 7027, 7036, 7037, 7039, 7041 to 7045, 8216 and 9804 of 2013]. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field. (See also: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. AIR 1997 SC 3011; Common Cause v. Union of India, AIR 2008 SC 2116; and Destruction of Public and Private Properties v. State of A.P. AIR 2009 SC 2266) 18. T......
-
Special Civil Application Nos. 2984 of 2012 with 11532 and 11533 of 2013. Case: Mahila Utkarsh Trust Through its President and Ors. Vs Union of India Through Secretary and Ors.. High Court of Gujarat (India)
...Inspector of Factories & Boilers, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 665. 5. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 241: (AIR 1997 SC 3011: 1997 Lab IC 6. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, reported in AIR 2008 SC 663. 7. Air India Cabin Crew Assocn v. Yeshawinee Merchant, ......
-
CM(M)--556/2018. Case: SWAMI RAMDEV Vs. JUGGERNAUT BOOKS PVT LTD & ORS. High Court of Delhi (India)
...and enforceable by courts in India.‖ 121. In terms of the verdict of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Vishakha vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 and the verdict of this Court in Neelam Katara Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2003) ILR 2 Delhi 377, till the time there is a legislation made,......
-
Indias New Labour Law - Prevention Of Sexual Harassment At The Workplace
...Act is implemented well, which in itself would go a long way in protecting the employees' interests and well-being in India. Footnotes 1 AIR 1997 SC 3011 2 Section 2(o), Sexual Harassment Act, 3 Section 354A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 4 Published in the Official Gazette on April 2, 2013 The c......
-
Government To Strengthen Women‐Safe' Laws
...them, irrespective of their work status. India is making consistent efforts to make it a women friendly working environment. Footnotes (AIR 1997 SC 3011) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/government-sets-up-gom-to-look-into-sexual-harassment-at-work-place/article......
-
Prevention Of Sexual Harassment In A Workplace
...workplaces. The Supreme Court in a landmark Judgement of Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011) observed the evil of harassment at the workplace being discriminatory to women and against their right to life and liberty. Furthering this,......
-
Prevention Of Sexual Harassment Of Women At Workplace
...Related Posts Related Posts POSH- Sexual Harassment against Women Checks & Balances for ICC committee under POSH Law Foootnote 1. AIR 1997 SC 3011 For further information please contact at S.S Rana & Co. email: info@ssrana.in or call at (+91- 11 4012 3000). Our website can be accessed at Th......