Bhanwari Devi

The rape that led to India ' s sexual harassment law
  • In 1992, a rural level change agent, Bhanwari Devi, was engaged by the state of Rajasthan,Women's Development Programme (WDP) as a Saathin to work towards the prevention of the practice of child marriages. Her job involved going door-to-door in the village, campaigning against social ills -she would tell women about hygiene, family planning, the benefits of sending their daughters to school, and she would discourage female foeticide, infanticide, dowry and child marriages Her work was met with resentment and attracted harassment from men of that community

  • The attack took place on 22 September 1992, she ran to help her husband, pleading with the men to show some mercy, but two of the attackers pinned him down and she was gang raped.The attackers were Gujjars, the affluent and dominant caste group in the village. Bhanwari Devi and her husband, Mohan Lal Prajapat, were from the low-caste potter community, Kumhar.

Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

  • Vishaka and Ors. v. State

    Chief Justice J.S. Verma presided over the Supreme Court bench delivered the landmark Vishaka judgment in 1997, which established guidelines for preventing and addressing sexual harassment at the workplace. The judgment, now known as the "Vishakha Guidelines, " defines sexual harassment, outlines employers' responsibilities to prevent it, and provides a framework for redressal mechanisms.

  • The Vishakha Case

    In India, before 1997, there were no formal guidelines for how an incident involving sexual harassment at workplace should be dealt by an employer. Women experiencing sexual harassment at workplace had to lodge a complaint under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code( Now Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita) that deals with the ' criminal assault of women to outrage women ' s modesty ' and Section 509 that punishes an individual or individuals for using a ' word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman '. These sections left the interpretation of ' outraging women ' s modesty ' to the discretion of the police officer

The Vishakha Guidelines

The judgment, commonly referred to as the Vishakha Guidelines, established a framework for addressing sexual harassment at the workplace in the absence of specific legislation.

Key Provisions

The guidelines define sexual harassment, outline the duty of employers to prevent it, and provide for mechanisms to address complaints.

Impact

The Vishakha judgment was a significant step towards protecting the rights of working women and has been instrumental in shaping legal and social attitudes towards sexual harassment in India.

Emergence of POSH Act

2007

Draft Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2007 ("Bill") approved by the Union Cabinet

2010

The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha

2012

Sep. 03, 2012, The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Bill, 2012 was passed by the Lok Sabha

2013

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Bill, 2012 was passed by the Rajya Sabha on February 26, 2013 On April 23, 2013, President gave assent on the POSH Act and the same was published in the Gazette of India as Act no. 14 of 2013

The Indian Ministry of Women and Child Development notified December 09, 2013 as the effective date of the POSH Act and the POSH Rules.

Key Concepts

Employee

Anyone working at a workplace, regardless of the nature or duration of their employment

Workplace

Any place visited by an employee during or as a result of their employment, including transportation provided by the employer, and also encompasses the employee’s dwelling place or house.

Workplace

Any department, organization, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch, or unit.

Any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment.

Private sector organizations or ventures. Hospitals and nursing homes.

Sports institutes, stadiums, sports complexes, or competition venues.

The extended workplace includes any place visited by an employee for work-related purposes, not just the traditional office

This could include business trips, client meetings, or even commuting if the employer provides transportation.

Aggrieved Women

“Aggrieved woman” is defined as a woman who alleges to have been subjected to any act of sexual harassment at the workplace. This definition applies regardless of her employment status, age, or whether she is directly or indirectly engaged with the employer.

Who is an Employer

“Employer” in relation to any department, office, branch, or unit of the appropriate Government or a local authority, as the head of that department, organization, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch or unit or such other officer as the appropriate Government or the local authority may specify.

On the other hand, in a non governmental setup, “employer” means any person responsible for the management, supervision, and control of the workplace, where “management”

includes the person or board or committee responsible for the formulation and administration of policies for such an organization.

Sexual Harassment

Any unwelcome act or behavior of a sexual nature,
whether physical, verbal, or non-verbal

Unwelcome

The act or behavior must be unwanted by the individual being targeted.
  • Physical contact and advances.
  • Demands or requests for sexual favors
  • Making sexually colored remarks
  • Showing pornography
  • Any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non verbal conduct of a sexual nature.

Sexual nature

The act or behavior must have a sexual connotation or be related to sexual desire

Types of Sexual Harassment

Quid Pro Quo

The term is Latin for "this for that".

Quid pro quo harassment is a type of sexual harassment that occurs when someone in a position of power demands sexual favors in exchange for job benefits.
  • A supervisor or manager threatens to fire, demote, or
    otherwise harm an employee’s career if they don’t comply with sexual demands
  • A supervisor offers a promotion, raise, or other benefit
    in exchange for sexual favors
  • A supervisor denies job opportunities to employees
    who don’t agree to sexual advances

2013 – A student of Mass Communication and Journalism filed a case against the Head of the Department of MCJ of ****  . The Head of the department kept on declining to accept the research work by the student persistently under one or other pretext.

On enquiring the reasons and suggestion for corrective action, the Head of the department tried to sexually harassed her in exchange of offering to accept and grade her research work with excellent grades.

Hostile work environment

Creating uncomfortable work environment by exhibiting unwelcome behavior

2012 – An IT intern filed a case with IC of an IT MNC giant stating she feels uncomfortable working with the project team she is allocated.

The project workload and stringent timelines necessitated to work beyond office hours and she was left alone with her male colleagues who played derogatory film songs with sexual connotations.

She mentioned that she had brought it to their notice that such behavior is making her uncomfortable and she is unable to concentrate on work.

But they made fun of her calling her “Aunty Ji and Dadi maa” citing that her thought process was old fashioned.

Test Cases