Written By Muhammad Ahmad What happens when the very people sitting on the bench use their power to intimidate and harass ? Have you ever th...
Written By Muhammad Ahmad
What happens when the very people sitting on the bench use their power to intimidate and harass?
.jpg)
Have you ever thought that the very institution tasked with protecting women from harassment could itself become the perpetrator? That those holding the scales of justice might misuse their powers to silence colleagues and manipulate processes, leaving victims with no path to redress? Unfortunately, this is not a hypothetical, it is exactly what unfolded in the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
When prominent lawyer Iman Zainab
Mazari filed a harassment complaint against Chief Justice IHC Sarfaraz Dogar over his
offensive remarks and threatening behaviour, the incident immediately became
one of the most troubling chapters in Pakistan’s judicial history. The way the
case has been handled since, particularly the removal of the only female judge
from the inquiry committee, has exposed deep cracks in the judiciary’s
credibility and raised alarming questions about accountability.
This is not just one woman’s battle.
It is about whether workplace harassment laws in Pakistan have any meaning when
the accused holds the highest judicial authority. It is about whether justice
is blind or selectively shielded when power is threatened.
What
Transpired
The events unfolded during a routine
hearing. Lawyer Iman Mazari appeared in court in the case of removing her
client Mahrang Baloch’s name from the Exit Control List. What should have been
a straightforward exchange turned bitter. Justice Dogar took offense to
Mazari’s remarks, even suggesting contempt proceedings.
The situation escalated when he addressed Mazari’s husband directly in open court:
“Hadi sahib, make her understand; if I get hold of her someday...”
These words, menacing, personal, and
undeniably inappropriate, prompted Mazari to file a harassment complaint with
the IHC’s anti-harassment committee.
Initially, Justice Rafat Imtiaz, the
only female judge of the IHC, took cognizance of the matter and formed an
inquiry committee with two other judges, as required under law. But shockingly,
the IHC administration soon removed Justice Rafat from the committee and
replaced her with Justice Inam Amin Minhas, effectively stripping the committee
of female representation.
For a harassment inquiry, this was a
staggering move. The accused judge, directly implicated in the complaint,
appeared to have influenced the very process meant to investigate him.
Backlash and
Reactions
The move sparked outrage. The Lahore
High Court Bar Association condemned the conduct of Justice Dogar, reminding
that lawyers are “officers of the court” whose dignity must be respected. The
Karachi Bar Association denounced the remarks as “highly inappropriate,”
stressing that judicial forums must remain impartial. The Balochistan Bar
Council went further, urging the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to dismiss
Justice Dogar.
Civil society activists, women’s
rights advocates, and legal observers warned of the chilling precedent this
sets: if a woman lawyer can face intimidation from the bench, what hope is left
for ordinary employees facing harassment in their workplaces?
Workplace
Harassment Laws in Pakistan
The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 was designed precisely to prevent abuses of power like this. Its key features include:
- Applicability to all workplaces, public and private, formal and informal.
- A broad definition of harassment, including verbal, written, physical, and online conduct.
- The requirement for every workplace to form a three-member harassment committee, including at least one woman.
- Independence of the committee from employer or accused influence.
- Protection of complainants from retaliation.
- Replacement of any committee member implicated in a complaint.
The law recognizes that harassment
often flows from power imbalances. That is why impartiality and independence
are central. If those safeguards collapse, if the accused can alter the
composition of the committee, the entire spirit of the law collapses with them.
The Critical
Question
Can the Chief Justice or any accused
authority, replace the head of the inquiry committee?
Section 3(3) of the Act is unambiguous:
“In case a complaint is made against one of the members of the Inquiry Committee, that member should be replaced by another for that particular case. Such member may be from within or outside the organization.”
The law envisions the removal of the accused from the process, not the
removal of the judge leading the inquiry into the accused. By allowing the
reshuffling of the committee under the influence of the accused, the IHC has
undermined both the letter and spirit of the Act.
This is not just a procedural
irregularity, it is a profound conflict of interest. It strikes at the
principle of nemo judex in causa sua:
no one should be a judge in their own cause. If the judiciary itself cannot
uphold this principle, then every other workplace in Pakistan receives the
message that harassment complaints can be manipulated at will.
Conclusion:
Why Awareness Matters
This controversy reveals more than
judicial arrogance, it exposes a dangerous institutional failure. When those
meant to provide justice turn into gatekeepers of impunity, the rule of law
itself is at risk.
The Protection against Harassment Act
was a hard-won achievement for women in Pakistan. But laws are only as strong
as their enforcement. Victims must be assured that they will be heard,
protected, and given a fair inquiry. Otherwise, silence will prevail, and
harassment will fester unchecked.
The judiciary must remember: its
legitimacy rests not in power but in public trust. To restore that trust, it
must submit itself to the same standards of accountability it imposes on
others. If it cannot protect victims within its own walls, it forfeits the
moral authority to demand accountability anywhere else.
This case is more than a scandal, it
is a test. A test of whether justice in Pakistan will remain captive to power,
or whether it will finally stand with the powerless.
Disclaimer: This article was written by the author with only limited use of AI.
.jpg)
(1).jpg)