Facts of the Research Problem
The existing case arose when Medha Kotwal Lele, the facilitator of Aalochana, a centre for documentation and examination of women, and other women's rights organisations, among others, filed an appeal with the Court, citing numerous instances of inappropriate behaviour and claiming that the Vishaka Directives were not being effectively implemented.

The candidates said that, despite the regulations, women were nevertheless harassed at work because the Vishaka Guidelines were being broken in both content and spirit by state officials who harassed women employees through legal and illegal ways, making them to suffer and insulting their nobility. Medha Kotwal wrote a letter in which she detailed several incidents of sexual harassment and expressed her dissatisfaction with the Vishaka Guidelines' implementation.

By converting the letter into a writ petition, the Supreme Court tried to monitor the use of the Vishaka Guidelines across the country by directing State Governments to produce affirmations highlighting the steps they took to implement the Vishaka Guidelines. A substantial portion of the states had a poor showing, according to the results.

Problem of Law

1. Whether individual state governments had made the changes to procedure and policy required by the Vishaka Guidelines and a number of earlier orders of the Court?

Court Judgment
The Court stated that the Vishaka Guidelines must be implemented in form, content, and spirit in order to assist achieve gender equality by ensuring that women may work with dignity, tolerance, and respect. It was noted that the Vishaka Guidelines urge both employers and other conscious individuals or foundations to keep an eye on them and to assist prevent women from engaging in improper behaviour.

The Court referred to its prior findings on January 17, 2006, that the Vishaka Guidelines had not been properly implemented by various Indian states and departments, as well as the course it offered at the time to help with improved coordination and implementation.

The Court then noted that a few states had failed to execute prior Court decisions that had required them to make their legislation comply with the Vishaka Guidelines. It was discovered that a few states had just changed select portions of their enactments rather than making all of the necessary changes, and that others had made much less progress. The Court underlined the need of preventing all forms of barbarism.

"Hollow rhetoric, empty articulations, and latent and insufficient legislation with haphazard execution are insufficient for genuine and true upliftment of our half most precious people - the women," it said. As needs be, it held that the Vishaka Guidelines ought not stay simply representative but instead will give guidance until the authoritative sanctioning of the Bill.

Analysis and Interpretation
The Court in Medha not only reiterates the precedent Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (6SCC 241, 1997). It actually recognizes the possibility of litigation seeking implementation of judicial decisions. In the words of Colin Gonsalves, founder of HRLN:
Though the guidelines were set many years ago, they remained unimplemented. This decision attempts to force implementation and it resurrects the almost forgotten guidelines

Conclusion & Recommendations
Sexual harassment created an uneasy and hostile environment for the lady, as well as affecting her work performance. It also had an impact on their social and financial growth, as well as putting them under a lot of physical, emotional, and mental strain. The Vishaka Guidelines were established in 1997 by the Supreme Court of India in the Vishaka Judgment.

Employees have a legal right to a safe work environment, but sexual harassment is a serious violation of that right. As a result, employers and organisations bear the primary responsibility for eliminating sexual harassment in all structures within their workplace. The POSH Act is effective in providing women with a safe and secure working environment, both physically and virtually. If the recommendations in the guidelines are implemented, it may result in a better implementation of the Act, which will go a long way toward protecting women's workplace rights(s).

The fundamental shift in association work to a work-from-home model has a number of drawbacks, one of which is the risk of sexual abuse. With the rise of virtual working, all of an organization's representatives are in close proximity. This increases the use of online correspondence, whether for formal or informal purposes.

With technological advancements, the workforce has found more effective ways to harm women by delivering explicit unfavourable viewpoints, obscene gestures, and other inappropriate remarks via text messages, video chats, and online existence, believing it to be harmless. That probably won't get featured in these online correspondence channels, as chiefs are not observing each message of the gatherings so shaped.

Many women are facing this new type of harassment as a result of the pandemic. They feel uncomfortable when their employer inquires about their personal life, such as what they are wearing, after-hours and uninvited calls in the middle of the night, or pressure to attend after-hours Zoom parties on a full-body visual.

In general, women are unclear what constitutes harassment in virtual employment and whether or not they may raise their voice. This is why many aggrieved women internalise their rage and fear, which can lead to physical sickness, poor performance, and anxiety.