The court emphasized the importance of giving due regard to international conventions and norms, and the obligation to protect fundamental rights, especially in cases involving violation of human rights.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition, has challenged the order dated 27 March, 2015 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby conclusive findings given on 21st December, 2012 by respondent No. 2, i.e. "Sexual Harassment Committee" have been ignored by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 has been exonerated.

2. Mr. Sumit Jidani, learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order dated 27 March, 2015 after giving ‘Benefit of Doubt’ to the respondent No. 3 as if he was dealing with a criminal trial and that too, after keeping the file pending for more than three years. He submits that the approach of respondent No. 1 is contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra, 1999 SCC (L&S) 405 wherein it has been held as under:-

“26. There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment at the place of work, results in violation of the fundamental right to gender equality and the right to life and liberty — the two most precious fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. As early as in 1993, at the ILO Seminar held at Manila, it was recognized that sexual harassment of women at the workplace was a form of “gender discrimination against women”. In our opinion, the contents of the fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fundamental rights. That sexual harassment of a female at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be eliminated and that there can be no compromise with such violations, admits of no debate. The message of international instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 (“CEDAW”) and the Beijing Declaration which directs all State parties to take appropriate measures to prevent discrimination of all forms against women besides taking steps to protect the honour and dignity of women is loud and clear. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights contains several provisions particularly important for women. Article 7 recognises her right to fair conditions of work and reflects that women shall not be subjected to sexual harassment at the place of work which may vitiate the working environment. These international instruments cast an obligation on the Indian State to gender-sensitise its laws and the courts are under an obligation to see that the message of the international instruments is not allowed to be drowned. This Court has in numerous cases emphasised that while discussing constitutional requirements, court and counsel must never forget the core principle embodied in the international conventions and instruments and as far as possible, give effect to the principles contained in those international instruments. The courts are under an obligation to give due regard to international conventions and norms for construing domestic laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law. (See with advantage — Prem Shankar Shukla vs. Delhi Admn. (1980) 3 SCC 526 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 815 : AIR 1980 SC 1535; Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. vs. Audrey D' Costa, (1987) 2 SCC 469 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 100 : JT (1987) 2 SC 34; Sheela Barse vs. Secy., Children's Aid Society, (1987) 3 SCC 50 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 458 SCC at p. 54; Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 932 : JT (1997) 7 SC 384; People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 433 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 434 : JT (1997) 2 SC 311 and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 92 SCC at p. 438.).

27. In cases involving violation of human rights, the courts must forever remain alive to the international instr