Supreme Court Reaffirms Vishaka Guidelines, Urges States to Strengthen Sexual Harassment Redressal Mechanisms at Workplaces

15 Years After Vishaka, SC Highlights Incomplete Implementation Across States, Issues Strict Directions to Ensure Effective Protection of Women at Work

In a landmark judgment delivered on October 19, 2012, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Medha Kotwal Lele & Others v. Union of India & Others revisited the critical issue of sexual harassment of women at workplaces and the implementation of the Vishaka guidelines laid down by the Court in 1997. The judgment underscores the persistent struggle faced by women in securing a safe working environment despite the guidelines being in place for over 15 years.

The Vishaka judgment, delivered in 1997, had mandated a comprehensive framework to prevent and redress sexual harassment at workplaces until suitable legislation was enacted by Parliament. It prescribed duties for employers and institutions, defined sexual harassment, outlined preventive steps, and mandated the constitution of Complaints Committees headed by women with NGO representation, among other measures.

The 2012 judgment comes as a stark reminder that many State Governments and public/private institutions have failed to fully implement these guidelines in both letter and spirit. The Supreme Court painstakingly reviewed the status of compliance by various States and Union Territories, revealing a patchy and inadequate response:

- Some States like Maharashtra, Mizoram, Sikkim, Uttaranchal, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, and Uttar Pradesh had made amendments in their Civil Services Conduct Rules and Standing Orders and constituted Complaints Committees at various levels. However, even these States often did not treat the Complaints Committees’ reports as final inquiry reports for disciplinary action, diminishing the effectiveness of the mechanism.

- Several States including Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, and others had either not amended the relevant rules or failed to constitute adequate Complaints Committees. In some cases, only one committee was formed for the entire State, clearly insufficient for meaningful redress.

- Union Territories such as Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and others showed similar patterns of non-compliance.

The Court emphasized the necessity for States and Union Territories to amend their Civil Services Conduct Rules and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules to treat the Complaints Committees’ reports as inquiry reports under disciplinary proceedings. It further directed that adequate Complaints Committees be constituted at taluka, district, and State levels, each headed by a woman and including independent members familiar with the issue of sexual harassment.

Significantly, the Court mandated that statutory professional bodies such as the Bar Council of India, Medical Council of India, Council of Architecture, Institute of Chartered Accountants, and Institute of Company Secretaries ensure compliance with Vishaka guidelines among their respective members and affiliated organizations, including issuing necessary instructions within two months.

The Court also stressed that victims of sexual harassment should not be forced to work under the accused and that transfer of either party should be considered to prevent further harassment. Harassment or intimidation of complainants and witnesses must attract severe disciplinary action.

The judgment recognized the broader societal context, noting India’s poor ranking (129 out of 147 countries) in the United Nations Gender Equality Index and the continued underrepresentation of women in Parliament and legislatures. It called for comprehensive legislative action to protect women from all forms of violence and discrimination at home, workplaces, and public spaces, emphasizing that lip service and inadequate enforcement are insufficient for genuine empowerment.

To ensure transparency and accountability, the Court also directed that aggrieved persons could approach respective High Courts for non-compliance with Vishaka guidelines and related Supreme Court orders.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India serves as both a reminder and a call to action. It highlights the urgent need for States, Union Territories, employers, institutions, and statutory bodies to move beyond symbolic compliance and establish effective, sincere mechanisms to protect women’s fundamental right to a safe and dignified workplace.

Statutory provisions

Article 141 of the Constitution of India, Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, Protection of Women Against Sexual Harassment at Work Place Bill, 2010 (pending legislation)

---

This report encapsulates the Supreme Court’s detailed assessment of the status of implementation of Vishaka guidelines across India and sets forth its directions aimed at safeguarding women’s rights at workplaces until comprehensive legislation is enacted.

Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 399549