Harassment at workplace ‘more about power than sex’: SC judge

ISLAMABAD: Supreme Court judge Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah has declared that “sexual harassment (at the workplace) is not about sex but it is about power”.

The judge said this in a verdict on a petition filed by one, Muhammad Din, who had challenged his forced retirement by the Punjab Ombudsperson in March 2020 on harassment allegations levelled against him by Dr Sidra Zafar.

The Punjab ombudsperson’s verdict was also upheld by the Punjab governor in August 2020 and later by the Lahore High Court (LHC) in 2023 in the same sexual harassment case.

The petitioner (Muhammad Din) had challenged the LHC verdict but Justice Mansoor Ali Shah dismissed the petition stating, “The contentions raised by the petitioner’s counsel have been convincingly answered in the impugned judgment. No jurisdictional error, illegality or procedural irregularity in the impugned judgment has been pointed out”

Dr Sidra Zafar filed a complaint against her driver, Muhammad Din (petitioner), alleging harassment and misconduct before the Punjab Ombudsperson on December 30, 2019, under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 (“2010 Act”).

According to the Supreme Court judge’s verdict, “The complaint (Sidra Zafar) detailed how she was subjected to abuse, verbal assaults, and character assassination by the petitioner by engaging in inappropriate conduct, using indecent language and behaving unethically with female patients and by spreading malicious rumours about her alleged affairs with male colleagues, scandalizing her reputation, and making derogatory remarks in the presence of other staff members.”

The judgement further said that “Despite multiple warnings, his misconduct continued. On October 26, 2019, the petitioner unlawfully entered the ultrasound room while respondent No 5 (Dr Sidra Zafar) was performing an ultrasound on a patient. He video-recorded the procedure without consent, later disseminating the video and making false and defamatory allegations against her, insinuating multiple affairs with men in an attempt to tarnish her dignity and professional standing.”

The ruling said that “It is important to underline that respondent No 5 lacked the direct authority to remove the petitioner from his position, hence enjoying no control over him. In fact, she formally requested her department to transfer him and even after the transfer order was issued, the petitioner defiantly refused to comply with the order, withholding the vehicle’s keys and logbook from the next appointed driver Taking cognizance of the complaint, the Punjab Ombudsperson issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, who denied the allegations. However, after a thorough examination of the evidence, the Ombudsperson found that the allegations stood proven and ruled that the petitioner’s actions constituted harassment under Section 2(h) of the 2010 Act, and imposed the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service under Section 4(4)(ii) of the 2010 Act.”

Also read: LHC summons woman over sexual harassment allegations against Babar Azam

It further said: “Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a representation before the Governor of Punjab, which was dismissed, vide order dated 06-08-2020 (“impugned order”). Subsequently, the petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court by filing a writ petition against the impugned order, which was also dismissed, vide judgment dated 30- 03-2023.”

The judgement said: “At the outset, it is imperative to recognize that workplace harassment remains a pressing global issue, affecting millions of workers across various sectors. More than one in five workers (22.8 per cent or 743 million people) worldwide have experienced some form of workplace violence or harassment. Women are slightly more likely than men to have faced harassment over their careers.  Workplace harassment is not merely an individual grievance. According to the Global Gender Gap Index (2024), (an index designed to measure gender equality globally) Pakistan ranks 145th out of 146 countries, making it the second lowest in the world. These alarming statistics underscore the persistent challenges faced by women in professional settings, particularly in countries with significant gender disparities like Pakistan. The prevalence of workplace harassment not only affects individual well-being but also reinforces systemic gender inequality, limiting women’s participation in the workforce and widening economic gaps.”

“……Workplace harassment and sexual harassment are deeply interconnected, as both stem from power imbalances, systemic discrimination, and entrenched societal norms that reinforce gender hierarchies. Sexual harassment is indeed widely understood as a manifestation of power dynamics rather than merely a sexual act. This perspective is well-documented in standard literature, which emphasizes that harassment often stems from an individual’s desire to assert dominance, control, or exploit power imbalances, particularly in hierarchical settings like workplaces, schools, or other social structures. Pioneering feminist legal scholar Catherine MacKinnon reframed sexual harassment not as individual misconduct but as systemic sex-based discrimination that reinforces gender hierarchies in the workplace. MacKinnon’s model reinforces that workplace power structures are viewed as hierarchical, with authority flowing from senior to junior employees. However, the present case demonstrates how gendered power dynamics –– even if an individual is lower in a formal power hierarchy, they may still wield informal power rooted in societal gender norms; social reinforcement –– harassment can be perpetuated by individuals at any level of a hierarchy if they are reinforced by social or cultural norms that condone or trivialize such behaviour; and intersectionality –– literature on intersectionality highlights how multiple axes of power (gender, race, class, etc,) intersect to shape experiences of harassment –– can override organizational hierarchies,” it said.

The judgement further said: “Despite being senior in the hierarchy, respondent No 5 was subjected to harassment by a driver, an employee significantly lower in the institutional hierarchy. This contradiction underscores the reality that harassment is about power, not formal position. The petitioner exerted informal power— through gendered privilege, power dynamics, and social reinforcement — to create a hostile work environment for a senior. This phenomenon reflects deeply ingrained patriarchal norms that resist women’s leadership, particularly in male-dominated professions where authority remains subconsciously associated with masculinity. ..…Thus, while sexual harassment is primarily understood as a power-based behaviour, individuals at any level of a hierarchy can perpetrate harassment, particularly when supported by gendered or social reinforcements.”

“… It is important to note that the petitioner’s actions also fall within this expanded definition. Pervasive workplace harassment, such as the denial of equal opportunities or gender-based criticism of one’s abilities, also falls within its ambit. Significantly, the Amendment Act replaces the phrase “a woman or man” with “any person” in the definition of “complainant,” thereby extending the law’s protection to transgender persons as well. This inclusive approach ensures that the law safeguards all persons — male, female, and transgender persons — acknowledging the heightened vulnerability of female and transgender persons to workplace harassment. Viewing the instant case, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been convincingly answered in the impugned judgment. No jurisdictional error, illegality or procedural irregularity in the impugned judgment has been pointed out to us. In this background, we are of the view that the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference. Leave is, therefore, declined and this petition is dismissed,” the judgement concluded.