19 February 2025
By Xari Jalil
LAHORE
The Supreme Court of Pakistan in a landmark case has dismissed an appeal filed by a driver, Muhammad Din, challenging his conviction for harassing a female doctor, Dr. Sidra Zafar.
The verdict given by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah held that even a junior employee could create a hostile environment for a senior, using informal power structures, social reinforcement and gendered privilege. The decision highlighted the court’s stance against workplace harassment and the systemic issues contributing to gender inequality in professional settings.
Case Background
Dr. Zafar filed a complaint against Din in 2019 under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. She alleged a pattern of abusive behavior, including verbal assaults, character assassination through rumors of affairs with colleagues, and derogatory remarks. The harassment culminated in Din unlawfully entering an ultrasound room during a procedure, recording it without Dr. Zafar’s consent, and disseminating the video with false and defamatory allegations.
Despite warnings, Din’s behavior persisted.
Dr. Zafar, lacking direct supervisory authority, requested his transfer, which he refused even after the order was issued. The Ombudsperson found the allegations proved, ruling that Din’s actions constituted harassment under the 2010 Act and imposing compulsory retirement. Din’s subsequent appeals to the Governor of Punjab and the Lahore High Court (LHC) were unsuccessful, leading to his final appeal to the Supreme Court.
Case lands in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed the broader context of workplace harassment, citing its global prevalence and disproportionate impact on women
“More than one in five workers (22.8% or 743 million people) worldwide have experienced some form of workplace violence or harassment,” the judgment noted, referencing a 2022 International Labour Organization (ILO) study. It quoted ILO further and added that ‘Women are slightly more likely than men to have faced harassment over their careers.’
The judgment underscored the ‘systemic nature’ of the problem, perpetuating gender inequality and hindering women’s professional growth. Referencing the 2024 Global Gender Gap Report, the court highlighted Pakistan’s low ranking (145th out of 146 countries) in gender equality and women’s economic participation.
Workplace harassment
The court defined workplace harassment as a pattern of mistreatment based on gender, power, or hierarchical disparities, creating a climate of fear and oppression. It emphasized the connection between harassment and institutional culture, functioning as a mechanism of exclusion. The judgment stressed that harassment stems from power imbalances, discrimination, and systemic inequalities, undermining individual autonomy, dignity, and broader principles of liberty, equality, and social justice, particularly for women and transgender persons.
The judgment drew upon the work of feminist legal scholar Catherine MacKinnon, explaining that sexual harassment is not simply individual misconduct but a form of systemic sex-based discrimination reinforcing gender hierarchies. It described the two primary forms of harassment: “quid pro quo” and “hostile work environment.”
The court highlighted the complexities of power dynamics in harassment cases, explaining how gendered power, social reinforcement, and intersectionality can override formal hierarchical structures.
Despite Dr. Zafar’s senior position, Din, a driver, used informal power to create a hostile work environment. The judgment emphasized that harassment is about power and control, not merely sexual desire, and serves to police and punish those who disrupt male-dominated spaces.
The Supreme Court acknowledged Pakistan’s legislative efforts to combat workplace harassment through the 2010 Act and its 2022 amendments. The judgment noted the Act’s expanded definitions of “employee,” “workplace,” and “harassment,” including gender-based discrimination. It also recognized the Act’s extension of protection to transgender persons.
The court affirmed that the 2010 Act, as amended, upholds gender equality and women’s right to work without fear of exploitation, safeguarding human dignity and promoting a safe working environment, aligning with Articles 14, 18, 25, and 34 of the Constitution. It further noted the alignment of Pakistani law with international instruments like the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention No. 190, CEDAW, UDHR, ICCPR, and ICESCR.
The judgment cited international jurisprudence on workplace harassment, referencing landmark cases. It stressed the importance of robust judicial enforcement to uphold human dignity, gender justice, and workplace equality.
Applying these principles to Din’s case, the Supreme Court found no errors in the lower courts’ judgments and dismissed the appeal of the accused.
Finally, the court urged Pakistan to ratify the ILO Violence and Harassment Convention, emphasizing the need for stronger alignment with international standards to eliminate workplace harassment.