By Muhammad Luqman
On 5 July 2021, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) delivered the judgment in Nadia Naz v. President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and interpreted the word “harassment,” defined in Section 2(h) of the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (2010 Act), for the first time. The judgment held that the 2010 Act only covers harassment of a “sexual nature” and that any other demeaning attitude, behavior, or conduct which may amount to harassment in the generic sense of the word, however devastating it may be to the victim, is not actionable under Section 2(h).
Section 2(h) of the 2010 Act defines “harassment” as “any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors or other verbal or written communication or physical conduct of a sexual nature or sexually demeaning attitudes, causing interference with work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment, or the attempt to punish the complainant for refusal to comply to such a request or is made a condition for employment.”
Workplace harassment is not merely a matter of bad manners or personal friction. It is a legal and social wrong that strikes at the core of dignity, equality, and the right to earn a livelihood in safety.
The Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act was enacted in Gilgit-Baltistan in 2013. On paper, it was a promise that every woman in every office, from the mountains of Skardu to the valleys of Hunza and the Secretariat in Gilgit, would have dignity, safety, and a voice.
The law created a clear structure: Departmental Inquiry Committees in every workplace to hear complaints at the first instance, and an Ombudsperson, an independent and powerful office, to act as the final guardian of justice, with the authority to summon, investigate, penalize, and provide victims with a real forum for redress.
But where did the promise stop?
Twelve years have passed. The committees exist in some departments, but the Office of the Ombudsperson in Gilgit-Baltistan has never been made functional.
Although the law provides an alternative forum until the appointment of an Ombudsperson, a lack of awareness and persistent social barriers often discourages victims from initiating proceedings.
The concept of workplace harassment must therefore be understood in a principled legal sense. It includes unwelcome conduct that demeans, intimidates, or offends an employee and interferes with their ability to work with confidence and dignity.
In its classic form, harassment may involve sexual advances, inappropriate comments, gestures, or demands. But in modern legal thought, especially where gender justice is concerned, harassment is not confined to physical or overtly sexual behavior alone. It also covers conduct that reflects hostility, bias, and abuse of power, particularly when it is directed at a person because of gender, status, background, or vulnerability.
Yet the legal meaning of harassment is only part of the story. The deeper problem lies in the social barriers that allow harassment to survive.
In many workplaces, the victim is not only confronting an individual wrongdoer but also a culture of silence, shame, and dependency. Social barriers begin with fear: fear of losing a job, fear of being labeled “difficult,” fear of retaliation, and fear of public embarrassment.
Many employees, especially women, hesitate to complain because they know that the burden of proof in practice often falls on the victim, while the institution remains passive. In conservative social settings, the pressure is even greater. A woman who speaks up may face gossip, blame, family pressure, or the suggestion that she should have tolerated the behavior quietly.
Such attitudes do not merely discourage complaints; they normalize injustice.
Another major social barrier is the unequal structure of workplace power. Harassment thrives where authority is concentrated in the hands of a supervisor, senior officer, or influential colleague. In such settings, employees may feel that reporting abuse will not lead to justice because the accused enjoys institutional protection.
This sense of helplessness is particularly strong among junior staff, contract workers, domestic employees, and those in informal sectors where labor protections are weak and social status is low. The law may promise dignity, but social reality often delivers dependency. That gap is where harassment becomes most damaging.
The first and most immediate forum is the internal workplace mechanism, where employers must create a fair, confidential, and responsive complaint structure. If that fails, the statutory forum under Pakistan’s harassment law is the Office of the Ombudsperson, which exists to hear complaints and provide relief.
In appropriate cases, departmental proceedings, civil remedies, service tribunals, or constitutional petitions may also become relevant, especially where institutional failure, discrimination, or retaliation is involved.
But a forum is useful only when it is accessible in practice. If a complainant must navigate bureaucracy, social shame, and institutional resistance before being heard, then access to justice remains only formal.
The best solution is not simply harsher punishment after harm has occurred; it is the creation of a workplace culture where harassment becomes difficult to commit and easier to report.
Employers should adopt clear anti-harassment policies, regular training, confidential reporting channels, and prompt inquiry procedures. Complaint committees must be independent, credible, and diverse in composition. Employees must be assured that retaliation will be treated as a serious breach of law and ethics.
These measures are not symbolic. They are the minimum requirements of a lawful workplace.
At the same time, social barriers must be addressed directly. Awareness is essential, but awareness alone is not enough. Organizations must challenge the mindset that silence is virtue and complaint is rebellion.
They must replace hierarchy-driven fear with accountability, replace gossip with confidentiality, and replace blame with due process. Media, educational institutions, and civil society also have a role in reshaping public understanding.
Harassment should not be seen as a personal failure of the victim but as misconduct that reflects institutional weakness and social inequality.
The law must be firm, the forums must be accessible, and the culture must change. Only then can work become what it ought to be: a place of contribution, respect, and equal opportunity rather than silence, fear, and disadvantage.
The writer is a lawyer based in Gilgit-Baltistan.
