Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1997

Bhanwari Devi, a woman belonging from Bhateri, Rajasthan started working under the Women’s Development Project (WDP) run by the Government of Rajasthan, in the year 1985. She was employed as a ‘Saathin’ which means ‘friend’ in Hindi.

• In the year 1987, as a part of her job, Bhanwari took up an issue of attempted rape of a woman who hailed from a neighbouring village. For this act, she gained full support from the members of her village. 
• In the year 1992, Bhanwari took up another issue based on the government’s campaign against child marriage. This campaign was subjected to disapproval and ignorance by all the members of the village, even though they were aware of the fact that child marriage is illegal. 
• In the meantime, the family of Ram Karan Gurjar had made arrangements to perform such a marriage, of his infant daughter. Bhanwari, abiding by the work assigned to her, tried to persuade the family to not perform the marriage but all her attempts resulted in being futile. The family decided to go ahead with the marriage. 
• On 5th May 1992, the sub-divisional officer (SDO) along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) went and stopped the said marriage. However, the marriage was performed the next day and no police action was taken against it. Later, it was established by the villagers that the police visits were a result of Bhanwari Devi’s actions. This led to boycotting Bhanwari Devi and her family. Bhanwari also lost her job amid this boycott.
• On 22nd September 1992, to seek vengeance, five men i.e, four from the above-mentioned Gurjar family- Ram Sukh Gujjar, Gyarsa Gujjar, Ram Karan Gujjar, and Badri Gujjar along with one Shravan Sharma had attacked Bhanwari Devi’s husband and later brutally gang-raped her. 
• The police had tried all possible ways to avoid filing any complaint against the accused which resulted in a delayed investigation. Even after facing so much criticism, Bhanwari Devi, with her incessant determination to get justice, managed to lodge a complaint. The medical examination was delayed for fifty-two hours. However, the examiner did not mention any commission of rape in the report but rather mentioned the age of the victim.

In the absence of sufficient evidence and with the help of the local MLA Dhanraj Meena, all the accused managed to get an acquittal in the Trial Court. But this acquittal resulted in a huge backlash from many women activists and organizations which supported Bhanwari. These organizations came together and raised their voice to attain justice, which resulted in the filing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). 

The PIL was filed by a women’s rights group known as ‘Vishaka’. It laid its focus on the enforcement of the fundamental rights of women at the Workplace under the provisions of Article 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, it also raised the issue of the need for protection of women from sexual harassment at Workplace.

1. Whether the sexual harassment in the workplace considered a violation of gender equality rights and the right to life and liberty?
2. Whether the court apply international laws if there are no relevant measures in place under existing laws?
3. Whether the employer have any responsibility when sexual harassment occurs involving its employees?

The court in this case with the help of the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan formulated the famous “Vishaka Guidelines”, which would be implemented in all the workplaces to curb violences against women that they face at their respective workplace.

The following guidelines were formulated as a part of the “Vishaka Guidelines”:

1. To prevent these offences, and create a women-friendly environment at the workplace, it would be the responsibility of the employer to formulate appropriate measures for action that might be taken.
2. Every place should have a special committee that would deal with these offences.
3. The apex court was of the opinion that these committees has been made to deal with offences against women. Thus, the committee should be headed by a woman and also should have an NGO dealing with the issues as an advisor to the committee.
4. All the complaints in regard to sexual harassment faced by women at the workplace would be dealt with by this committee, and after a detailed investigation, appropriate action can be initiated by the employer.
5. “Section 2 of the Guidelines for the purpose of the guidelines defined “sexual harassments” as For this purpose, sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as:
   • (a). Physical contact and advances;
   • (b). A demand or request for sexual favors;
   • (c). Sexually colored remarks;
   • (d). Showing pornography;
   • (e). Any other unwelcome physical verbal or non-verbal conduct of "sexual nature”.
6. These Guidelines were carefully formulated while referring to various international convention and international laws that have been already implemented in many countries, thus it is assuring that is in no manner ultra-virus to any legislature of the domestic law.

It is important to note that the case of “Vishaka” was the first of its kind and along with it being a case of gender inequality and sexual harassment of women at the workplace it was also a case that violated the basic human rights of women, thus these guidelines formulated are consonance with the "Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993".