Sexual Harassment at Workplace: Comparative Analysis of India and Bangladesh

  • Megha Gupta
  • Show Author Details
  • Megha Gupta

    LL.M. Student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida, India

  • img Download Full Paper


Sexual harassment is the archetype of violence because it involves unwanted and inappropriate physical approaches and sexual connotations. It goes from verbal offences to physical violence. It may occur everywhere, including businesses, educational institutions, and public spaces. Sexual harassment is not unique to Bangladesh; in this era of gender-based violence, it is pervasive around the globe. Both sexual harassment perpetrators and victims might be male or female. Despite the fact that workplace violence and harassment have been a worldwide reality for decades, there were no legally enforceable international instruments forbidding or mandating nations to adequately handle workplace violence and harassment. In Bangladesh and other South Asian nations, sexual harassment is sometimes referred to as "eve-teasing," therefore diminishing its gravity. Using a euphemism for something that is profoundly improper diminishes the gravity of the behaviour. By classifying sexual harassment as "eve-teasing," we argue that women in the same scenario are both teased and deserve to be teased. Today, both Bangladesh and India are suffering same issue. No female employee is secure, and they lack a sense of safety. There have been advances in the legislation of several nations to protect female employees from sexual harassment. India is a liberal democracy. Article 21 of India's constitution stipulates that all citizens have the fundamental right to live with dignity. However, there is no statute that particularly addresses sexual harassment. Laws are incapable of providing victims with justice. There have been several instances taken before the supreme court of India, but none have been successful in establishing new sexual harassment statutes. In 1997, the Supreme Court attempted to establish a precedent in Vishakha's case. In this case, the Supreme Court contended that distinct statutes are necessary, but this argument did not receive the necessary consideration.


Research Paper


International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 6, Issue 4, Page 600 - 608


Creative Commons

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution -NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (, which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.


Copyright © IJLMH 2021