Date: 13/08/1997
Bench: CJI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR, B. N. KIRPAL
FACTS
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.
ISSUES
Whether sexual harassment at the Workplace amounts to a violation of Rights of Gender Inequality and Right to Life and Liberty?
Whether the court could apply international laws in the absence of applicable measures under the existing?
Whether the employer has any responsibility when sexual harassment is done to/by its employees?
JUDGMENT
The lack of a law that would prevent sexual harassment and provide women with a safe working environment was acknowledged by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Section 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were to be referred in any case of sexual harassment but these provisions were not specific to the issue at hand. This made the Hon’ble court realize the need for proper and effective legislation that would deal with sexual harassment.
The Hon’ble Court took reference from the international conventions to proceed with the case. It referred to the Beijing Statement of Principles on the independence of Judiciary[3] in the LAWASIA region, to function as a guardian of citizens’ rights and independently make laws in the absence of any legislative framework. Then the Hon’ble court took reference from the provisions of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. They were-
Article 11 (1) (a) & (f)- which states that the State takes all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment.
Article 24- which states that the State shall undertake to adopt all necessary measures at the national level aimed at achieving the full realization.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court framed the guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the Workplace, known as Vishaka Guidelines, that were to be treated as law declared under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. These guidelines were the foundation for The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Comments