The case of Vishakha and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others is related to -

Correct — option (4), Prevention of sexual harassment of women at work place.

Vishaka & Ors vs State of Rajasthan & Ors was decided by the Supreme Court on 13 August 1997 by a bench of Chief Justice J. S. Verma, Justice Sujata V. Manohar and Justice B. N. Kirpal.

The judgment opens by stating the petition's aim: "to prevent sexual harassment of working women in all work places through judicial process, to fill the vacuum in existing legislation."

Noting "the absence of enacted law" for effective protection against sexual harassment, the Court laid down guidelines and norms "for due observance at all work places or other institutions, until a legislation is enacted for the purpose".

It did so in exercise of its power under Article 32, and said the guidelines would be treated as law declared under Article 141.

These are the Vishaka guidelines. Among other things, they place a duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment, define it, list preventive steps, and require a complaints committee headed by a woman.

The idea to remember: Vishaka (1997) = guidelines against sexual harassment of women at the workplace, later followed by the 2013 Act.

Why the others are wrong

• (1)
  Transfer policy for women — The judgment mentions transfer, but only as a remedy inside the harassment guidelines. Under the heading on criminal proceedings it says: "The victims of sexual harassment should have the option to seek transfer of the perpetrator or their own transfer."

  The case is not about a transfer policy for women employees; transfer is one protection for a woman facing harassment.

• (2)
  Maternity leave in respect of working women — The judgment quotes Article 42, "Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief", as one of the constitutional provisions relevant to safe working conditions.

  Maternity relief is not its subject. Maternity benefit for women workers is governed by a separate statute, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

• (3)
  Prevention of the practice of dowry prevalent in the society — Dowry is dealt with by a different law, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and is not the subject of the Vishaka petition.

  The judgment's subject is working women: it relies on Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21, and cites Articles 42 and 51A among related provisions, to protect women from sexual harassment at work.

The Vishaka guidelines define sexual harassment to include unwelcome sexually determined behaviour, directly or by implication, such as physical contact and advances, a demand or request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, and any other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.

They require a complaint mechanism in every employer's organisation, with time-bound treatment of complaints. The Complaints Committee "should be headed by a woman and not less than half of its member should be women", with a third party such as an NGO.

"In the absence of domestic law occupying the field", the Court used international conventions to interpret the guarantees of gender equality and the right to work with dignity in Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21.

Key facts

• Vishaka & Ors vs State of Rajasthan & Ors: Supreme Court judgment dated 13 August 1997; bench of CJI J. S. Verma, Sujata V. Manohar and B. N. Kirpal.
• The Court laid down guidelines under Article 32 for all work places, to be treated as law declared under Article 141 until legislation was enacted.
• Guidelines: the Complaints Committee should be headed by a woman, at least half its members women, with a third party such as an NGO.
• The immediate cause of the petition was an alleged gang rape of a social worker in a village of Rajasthan.
• Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013: in force from 9 December 2013.

Common traps

• Linking 'transfer' to a transfer policy: in Vishaka, transfer is the harassment victim's option to seek her own or the perpetrator's transfer.
• Taking Article 42's 'maternity relief', quoted in the judgment, as the case's subject: the judgment cites it as one relevant provision on working conditions.
• Placing the guidelines after the 2013 Act: the Court issued them in 1997, in the absence of enacted law, and Parliament's Act followed in 2013.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Under the guidelines laid down in Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997), the Complaints Committee should be headed by

  • (a)the head of the organisation
  • (b)a woman
  • (c)a retired judge
  • (d)the District Collector
  Answer(2) — The guidelines say the Complaints Committee should be headed by a woman, with not less than half its members women. Options (1), (3) and (4) are not the head the guidelines prescribe.
• practice — not a real PYQ

  In Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace in exercise of its power under

  • (a)Article 32
  • (b)Article 226
  • (c)Article 143
  • (d)Article 368
  Answer(1) — The Court said it acted under Article 32 for enforcement of fundamental rights, with the guidelines treated as law declared under Article 141. Option (2) is the High Courts' writ power, option (3) the President's reference to the Supreme Court, and option (4) the power to amend the Constitution.