Islamabad, Nov 1 — Pakistan's Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has overturned the Islamabad High Court's ruling in the workplace harassment case of Nadia Sarwar, raising questions about the interpretation of workplace harassment and the protection of women's rights in a patriarchal society, a report said.
The case has sparked concerns about whose experiences the law considers and whether it adequately assesses the power imbalances women face at the workplace in Pakistan. The case started in 2012 when Nadia Sarwar said that she faced workplace harassment at the National Bank of Pakistan. After proceedings before the federal ombudsperson, two officers were directed to undergo compulsory retirement. Subsequently, the President reduced the penalties of officials to censure, according to the report in Union of Catholic Asian (UCA) News.
Later, the Islamabad High Court restored the original penalties. However, the Federal Constitutional Court has now overturned that verdict and restored the President's order.
The case raises concerns about how harassment is interpreted and how institutional power and legal authority shape women's access to justice in Pakistan.
Pakistan's FCC interpreted the pre-2022 amendment in which workplace allegations required a sexual element, according to the report.
"Nevertheless, the decision has renewed concerns about how harassment is defined and proved. A narrow interpretation may leave some forms of gender-based mistreatment outside the scope of workplace harassment law, even when they create a hostile or intimidating working environment," Anee Muskan said in a report in UCA News.
"The question is whether legal definitions and evidentiary standards adequately account for the realities of women working under the authority of colleagues or supervisors. The difficulties of reporting harassment are well documented in Pakistan," the author added.
Several lawyers in Pakistan have raised concerns over the FCC's ruling in the workplace harassment case of Nadia Sarwar.
Lawyer Aaminah Qadir said the FCC verdict was against a judgment given by a female Supreme Court judge "who actually understands (first-hand) that implications of harassment at work may not always be overtly sexual".
"This goes against a Supreme Court judgment — from a female judge— who actually understands (first hand) that implications of harassment at work may not always be overtly sexual. Sad days as we take steps back & undermine solid judgments from the Supreme Court. Gender gap is sure to widen," Qadir said on social media platform X.
Reema Omer said that the FCC's verdict on workplace harassment "limits the ambit of the law to only sexual harassment" and seems to increase the burden of proof on the complainant, terming the case as "another example of how the FCC experiment is a complete and utter disaster".
In a post on X, Omer added, "The Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment on workplace harassment limits the ambit of the law to only "sexual harassment" and appears to increase the burden of proof on the complainant."
"It is easily one of the most regressive judgments related to gender-based abuse in recent times and fails victims of harassment, including women. It is poorly reasoned, disconnected with how workplace harassment actually occurs, and ignores important sections of the law it is supposed to interpret. Yet another example of how the FCC experiment is a complete and utter disaster," she said.