Supreme Court’s Ruling on Sexual Harassment and Institutional Accountability

By Sana Murtaza, Advocate and Immigration Practitioner and Muhammad Imran, Staff Member, SAHSOL-LUMS and Sakhi Hussain, Research Assistant

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has brought into sharp focus a longstanding threat to women in the workplace: harassment made worse by institutional silence. By restoring the disciplinary penalty imposed on a government school headmistress who failed to act on complaints from female teachers, the Court placed accountability in the workplace at the forefront. The ruling asks a question that is often overlooked – what happens when those responsible for ensuring the safety of their employees fail to act? An institution may have formal procedures for protection and investigating claims, yet still leave employees unshielded. Such inaction fosters impunity and fear, deterring victims from reporting further misconduct and denying them the dignity of a safe workplace.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Musarrat Hilali set aside the Punjab Service Tribunal’s decision to reduce the headmistress’s punishment. The judgment directed public and private educational institutions to give practical effect to workplace-harassment laws rather than treating compliance as a procedural formality.

The case arose from disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, against Ms Shazia Iqbal, then head of the Government Special Education Centre in Faisalabad. One charge concerned the unauthorized occupation of institutional premises by an employee. However, the more serious charge related to complaints made against Kamran Khan, a therapist at the center, who was accused of harassing female teachers and pressuring them into inappropriate relationships. According to the departmental case, these complaints had been brought to Ms Iqbal’s attention. She did not report them to the higher authorities or take effective steps to protect the teachers working under her supervision. The allegations against Mr Khan remained allegations to be determined through the proper process; the proceedings against Ms Iqbal concerned her own failure to respond as the head of the institution.

While the sexual harassment allegations against Mr Khan were to be determined through separate and due process; Ms Iqbal’s case concerned an entirely distinct, but hefty, failure – her inaction as head of the institute, and the institutional impunity she therefore enabled.

Following a departmental inquiry, the competent authority found Ms Iqbal guilty of gross negligence and ordered the forfeiture of five years of her past service. The Punjab Service Tribunal reduced the penalty to one year. The provincial government challenged that reduction before the Supreme Court, while Ms Iqbal sought complete exoneration. The dispute therefore reached the Court through the language of service law: whether the Tribunal had a sufficient basis to interfere with a punishment imposed after a departmental inquiry. Yet the facts also required the Court to confront the wider consequences of official inaction: a person who heads an educational institution is not a passive recipient of complaints. This position carries authority, and with it comes the obligation to respond when the safety and dignity of employees are at stake.

In restoring the original penalty, the Court reinforced that institutional authorities may also be held accountable where their failure to act allows harassment to persist.

By restoring the penalty imposed upon the Headmistress, the Supreme Court sent a clear message that administrative authorities cannot remain passive in matters involving harassment and misconduct. Leadership positions carry a duty of care, and those who fail to discharge that duty may be held responsible for their negligence. The judgment therefore expands the understanding of institutional responsibility by recognizing that preventing harassment is not only the responsibility of the direct offender but also of those who have the authority and duty to intervene.

The decision also reinforces the principle that workplace harassment laws must be implemented in their true spirit. Educational institutions, whether public or private, are required to establish effective mechanisms for reporting and addressing complaints, ensure impartial inquiries, protect complainants from retaliation, and hold responsible individuals accountable. The guidelines issued by the Supreme Court provide a framework for institutions to strengthen their internal systems and promote an environment based on respect, professionalism, and equal opportunity.

The harder task of enforcement begins after the judgment. Although many organisations already display codes of conduct and claim to have inquiry committees, they lack effective remedies. Employees may not know where to report a complaint out of fear that their confidentiality will be breached, or that their careers will suffer. Institutions should therefore examine whether their procedures are impartial and accessible. Training is an essential component in workplace safety, ensuring everyone is aware of zero tolerance, consequences, and reporting mechanisms. Something as obvious as cultivating institutional empathy may be another major step – a dismissive response can close the door before an inquiry even begins to take shape.

The Supreme Court’s decision constitutes an important development in Pakistan’s workplace harassment jurisprudence, extending responsibility from the person accused of harassment to those vested with the duty to intervene. However, whether it holds lasting significance depends solely on implementation. Educational institutions and places of work must ensure that their internal mechanisms operate effectively, protect complainants from retaliation and subject allegations to due process. Without sustained enforcement, even strong legal safeguards may be reduced to procedural formality.