August 2, 2025
by Rehan Piracha
LAHORE
Women’s rights organisations and activists have voiced alarm over the Sindh High Court’s (SHC) decision to suspend an order by the provincial ombudsperson that had directed the removal of K-Electric (KE) CEO Moonis Alvi over workplace harassment allegations.
On August 1, just a day after the provincial ombudsperson found Alvi guilty of harassment and ordered his immediate removal, the SHC stayed the ruling. The suspension, granted on a petition filed by Alvi, came as a blow to those advocating accountability for workplace harassment.
“This is disappointing but unsurprising,” said Aurat March Karachi in a strongly worded statement. “K-Electric fired her for launching this complaint, and after five long years, the Sindh Ombudsperson declared her allegations to be true — ordering the removal of Moonis Alvi from his post. However, the SHC has dismissed this ruling today, which fits the pattern of delaying justice that we’ve come to expect in women’s cases.”
The group called on the court to reconsider its intervention. “We urge the SHC to reflect on the patriarchal tendencies in situations like these and reinstate the Ombudsperson’s ruling. Not doing so would confirm what many women in Pakistan already feel — that the state is not on our side.”
A dangerous precedent
Prominent rights lawyer Sarah Malkani questioned the legal grounds for such a swift suspension. Speaking to Voicepk, she said, “Unless there is an apparent error in the ombudsperson’s order that causes irreparable harm, it should not be stayed.” The support of the KE board to the CEO, in light of the ombudsperson’s verdict, undermines the company’s commitment to the law, she added.
Malkani stressed that all organisations must comply with the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. “They are legally obligated to both prevent and penalise workplace harassment.”
SHC overstepped legal process
Academic and women’s rights campaigner Dr Arfana Mallah expressed surprise at what she called premature judicial interference. “According to the law, the first appeal against the ombudsperson’s ruling lies with the provincial governor. Only after that can a party approach the high court,” she explained.
She warned that such interventions not only weaken legal protections for women but also damage the credibility of judicial institutions.
The SHC order to suspend the ombudsperson’s verdict is a great setback to women who have been fighting their cases for years. “This would discourage women to lodging complaints of harassment at their workplaces especially big corporations,” Mallah pointed out.
Male judicial bias hinders justice
According to Mallah, there is a lack of gender sensitisation among the lower and higher judiciary about the laws made for the protection of women. “The rights activists must raise the question that such harassment related cases be primarily heard by female judges because male judges are unable to go beyond their gender bias.”
“The Supreme Court, which has given landmark judgments relating to women protection in recent years, should issue directions to high court judges to refrain from passing orders in such cases after summarily hearing lawyers,” she added.
In her experiences, she has seen countless cases where women have fought their harassment cases in isolation but were unable to get justice due to male patriarchal support to the harassers. “The big multinationals and corporations often brush harassment complaints by female employees under the carpet,” she added.
Mallah said the public universities have some sort of mechanism against harassment but none in notable private universities of the country. “The female complainants are further harassed and fired from their jobs.” In her view, the lone forum of the ombudsperson was not enough for victims of harassment but it should be backed with solid legal and assistance from civil society as well.
In her original complaint, Mahreen Aziz Khan, former KE chief marketing and communications officer, accused CEO Moonis Alvi and three other senior officials — Rizwan Dallia (Chief People Officer), retired Colonel Wahid Asghar (Chief of Security), and Khalid Rafi (Chairman Board HR Committee) — of creating a hostile, intimidating, and mentally agonising work environment.
The provincial ombudsperson, Justice (R) Shahnawaz Tariq, found Alvi guilty of workplace harassment and penalised him under Section 4(4)(ii)(c) of the 2010 Act. He was ordered removed from his post and fined Rs2.5 million in compensation to be paid to Khan within 30 days.
In response, Alvi filed a petition at the SHC, arguing that the provincial ombudsperson lacked jurisdiction, since KE is a trans-provincial entity and the complaint was filed by a former employee. He also claimed the complaint did not explicitly allege sexual or physical harassment or gender discrimination.
In its interim order, the SHC stated that the jurisdiction of the provincial ombudsperson over KE “requires consideration,” and issued notices to the respondents and Sindh Advocate General for August 8. It ordered the suspension of the ombudsperson’s decision until the next hearing, but required Alvi to deposit the Rs2.5 million penalty with the court’s nazir.