After a social worker was gang-raped for trying to stop a child marriage, women’s groups asked India’s Supreme Court to act. In 1997 the Court issued the Vishaka Guidelines on workplace sexual harassment, which served as law for sixteen years and inspired Bangladesh’s own guidelines.
Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court of India Confronts Workplace Sexual Harassment
30th Sep 2026, author: admin
| CASE AT A GLANCE | |
|---|---|
| Citation | Vishaka v State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241; AIR 1997 SC 3011 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Bench | JS Verma CJ (author), Sujata V Manohar and BN Kirpal JJ |
| Date | 13 August 1997 |
| Outcome | Binding guidelines on the prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace, to apply until legislation is enacted |
ARTICLE TEXT
Sometimes a court is asked to protect a right that the legislature has left without any machinery of enforcement. In Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, decided on 13 August 1997, the Supreme Court of India faced exactly that situation with sexual harassment at the workplace. Its response, the Vishaka Guidelines, became one of the most influential examples of judicial lawmaking in South Asia, and directly inspired the Bangladesh High Court’s 2009 guidelines in BNWLA v Bangladesh.
The Background
Bhanwari Devi worked as a saathin, a grassroots worker, in a women’s development programme run by the Government of Rajasthan. Part of her work was campaigning against child marriage. In 1992, after she tried to stop the marriage of an infant girl in her village, she was gang-raped by men from the family involved. The criminal trial ended in the acquittal of the accused in 1995. The case caused national outrage and exposed how vulnerable women workers were, even when working for the state.
A group of women’s organisations and social activists, under the collective name Vishaka, filed a public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows direct access to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. They argued that the absence of any law protecting women from sexual harassment at work violated their fundamental rights.
The Issue
India had no statute on sexual harassment. The question was whether the Court could, and should, fill that gap by declaring binding rules in the meantime.
The Decision
The Court, in a judgment written by Chief Justice JS Verma, held that sexual harassment at the workplace violates the fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), to non-discrimination on grounds of sex (Article 15), to practise any profession or carry on any occupation (Article 19(1)(g)) and to life and personal liberty (Article 21), which the Court read to include the right to work with dignity.
In the absence of domestic law, the Court turned to international law. India had ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 1993. The Court held that international conventions not inconsistent with fundamental rights must be read into those rights to give them meaning and content, relying on Article 51(c), which directs the state to foster respect for international law, and Article 253, which gives Parliament power to legislate to implement treaties.
The Vishaka Guidelines
The Court then laid down guidelines to be followed in all workplaces, public and private. It defined sexual harassment to include unwelcome physical contact and advances, a demand or request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, and any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. It placed a duty on employers to prevent harassment and to provide procedures for resolution and punishment. Every employer had to establish a complaints committee headed by a woman, with at least half its members women, and including a third-party member from a non-governmental organisation or other body familiar with the issue. The guidelines were declared law under Article 141 of the Constitution, binding until suitable legislation was enacted.
The Aftermath
Implementation was slow, and the Court had to return to the issue in Medha Kotwal Lele v Union of India (2012), directing stricter compliance. The guidelines were finally replaced by legislation in 2013, when Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, which built on the Vishaka framework of internal complaints committees.
Why It Matters
Vishaka shows how a constitutional court can use international treaty obligations to give content to domestic rights, and how guidelines can serve as interim law when the legislature is silent. Its influence crossed borders. When the High Court Division in Dhaka issued its sexual harassment guidelines in 2009, it relied expressly on Vishaka and adopted a similar structure of definitions, duties and complaint committees. For students, the case raises the enduring question of how far courts should go in making law, and offers a powerful example of what can happen when they do.
Sources
- Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013, India Code: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2104
- BNWLA v Government of Bangladesh (2009), judgment (PDF): https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b3108bbe74940194b83f30f/t/5bc59c468165f5b951fc29bd/1539677259461/Bangladesh+Supreme+Court+decision+re+sexual+harassment+guidelines.pdf
Recent Landmark Cases - International
Bangladesh/Myanmar (ITLOS 2012): How Bangladesh Won Its Place in the Bay of Bengal
In its first maritime boundary case, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea drew the boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal on 14 March 2012, adjusting the line to reflect Bangladesh's concave coast and delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles for the first time. CASE AT A [...]
The Nuremberg Judgment (1946): When Individuals Were First Held Responsible for Crimes Against International Law
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg tried the surviving leaders of Nazi Germany in 1945–46. Its judgment established that individuals, not only states, can be punished for crimes against international law, and that official position and superior orders are no defence. CASE AT A GLANCE Tribunal International Military Tribunal (United States, United Kingdom, France, Soviet [...]
Nicaragua v United States (1986): The ICJ Rules on Force, Intervention and Self-Defence
In 1986 the International Court of Justice held that the United States had breached international law by supporting the contra rebels and mining Nicaragua's ports. The judgment set out the modern law on the use of force, self-defence and the attribution of rebel conduct to states. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation Military and Paramilitary Activities [...]
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v Albania) 1949: The ICJ’s First Judgment
When two British warships struck mines off the Albanian coast in 1946, killing 44 sailors, the dispute became the first contentious case decided by the International Court of Justice. Its principles on state responsibility and passage through straits are still cited today. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v Albania), Merits, Judgment, [...]
R (Miller) v Prime Minister; Cherry v Advocate General [2019] UKSC 41: The Prorogation Case
In September 2019 an eleven-justice UK Supreme Court unanimously held that the Prime Minister's advice to prorogue Parliament for five weeks was unlawful, because it frustrated Parliament's constitutional functions without reasonable justification. Parliament had never been prorogued. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation R (Miller) v The Prime Minister; Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] [...]
Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973): The Case That Created the Basic Structure Doctrine
Hearing a religious leader's challenge to land reform laws, a thirteen-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held by 7:6 that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but cannot destroy its basic structure. The doctrine travelled to Bangladesh in 1989. CASE AT A GLANCE Citation (1973) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC [...]