A camerawoman at Pakistan Television files a harassment complaint. While it is still pending, she is charge-sheeted and terminated. She then loses before the President in 2018, before the Islamabad High Court in 2019 and before the Supreme Court in 2021. That last ruling, PLD 2021 Supreme Court 784, read the Women Harassment Act so narrowly that the Court itself called the law “just another piece of cosmetic legislation” (para 12).
Most write-ups stop there, and that is exactly where they go wrong. In 2023 the Supreme Court reviewed and set aside its own judgment. The President then decided her case afresh. And in September 2026 the new Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) brought the narrow reading back for older cases.
If you face harassment (hirasgi) at work, this one case explains what the Women Harassment Act really covers, which version applies to you, and why a harassment complaint alone may not save your job.
Table of Contents
Judgment at a Glance about Women Harassment Act
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | N.N. v. President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others (complainant’s name shortened for privacy) |
| Citation | PLD 2021 Supreme Court 784 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench | Mushir Alam, Yahya Afridi and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, JJ. (judgment by Mushir Alam, J.) |
| Case number | Civil Petition No. 4570 of 2019 |
| Dates | Heard 22 September 2020; decided 5 July 2021 |
| Appeal from | Islamabad High Court judgment of 11 October 2019 in W.P. No. 2948 of 2018 |
| Law involved | Women Harassment Act (Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010), sections 2(h), 4(4), 8 and 10; Article 12 of the Constitution |
| Result in one line | Petition dismissed: harassment had to be sexual in nature, and the Ombudsman could not reinstate her |
| Later history | Set aside on review in PLD 2023 SC 588 and sent back to the President |
IRAC: The 2021 Case in One Table
| IRAC | Simple explanation |
|---|---|
| Issue | (1) Did section 2(h) of the Women Harassment Act cover every kind of workplace harassment, or only sexual conduct? (2) Could the Federal Ombudsman set aside disciplinary proceedings and reinstate the complainant? |
| Rule | Section 2(h) defined harassment around sexual advances, requests, communication or conduct and sexually demeaning attitudes. Sections 4(4), 8 and 10 set out penalties and the Ombudsman’s powers. Article 12 bars punishment for conduct the law does not cover. |
| Analysis | The definition, not the title or preamble, decides what is actionable. The complainant had to prove a sexual intention or overture. No section gives a power of reinstatement, and disciplinary matters belong to service forums. Her termination was never challenged. |
| Conclusion | The President’s order and the High Court judgment were upheld and the petition was dismissed. (This judgment was later set aside on review in 2023.) |
From a PTV Camera Room to the Supreme Court
N.N. joined PTV on 4 September 2007 as a temporary Resource Person in the Camera Department. On 8 March 2016 she filed a complaint under the Women Harassment Act before the Federal Ombudsman (Wafaqi Mohtasib) against two senior officers of PTV’s administration.
While that complaint was pending, PTV charge-sheeted her, issued a show-cause notice and terminated her service. The reported text says the termination took effect from 13 May 2017 through an order dated 17 May 2016, which looks like a typing slip in the report. Crucially, she never challenged the termination before any forum, so it attained finality.
On 16 October 2017, the Ombudsman went far beyond the original complaint. The order treated the departmental inquiry itself as harassment, withheld the two officers’ promotions for two years under section 4(4)(i)(b) and fined them Rs.100,000 payable to her. It also set aside the disciplinary proceedings and reinstated her.
Then the tide turned against her:
- 5 July 2017: an inter-departmental inquiry commission set up by the Ministry reported that no incident of harassment had taken place.
- 5 January 2018: the President accepted the officers’ representations. He found a discipline and service dispute, not harassment as the Women Harassment Act then defined it, and told her to seek her service remedy before the competent forum.
- 11 October 2019: the Islamabad High Court upheld the President’s order.
- 5 July 2021: the Supreme Court dismissed her petition.
What Each Side Argued
The Complainant’s Case
Appearing in person with pro bono counsel, she argued that colleagues harassed her and that, once she complained, the department victimised her with needless inquiries and dismissal. She asked the Court to restore the Ombudsman’s order in full, including reinstatement.
The Officers’ and PTV’s Reply
The respondents argued that the Ombudsman’s power begins only when harassment as defined in the Women Harassment Act is proved. Disciplinary and service disputes fall outside it, and nothing in the law lets the Ombudsman reinstate anyone. They also stressed that she had never challenged her termination, even after the President pointed her to the correct forum.
The Evidence on the Record
The Supreme Court did not re-try the facts. The material it noted was mostly documentary:
- the harassment complaint of 8 March 2016;
- the charge sheet, show-cause notice and termination order;
- her repeated applications to the Ombudsman and seven complaints to the President;
- the Ombudsman’s order of 16 October 2017;
- the inquiry commission report of 5 July 2017; and
- the President’s order and the High Court judgment.
What was missing mattered most. Under the 2021 reading of the Women Harassment Act, she had to prove a sexual intention or overture (para 21). The record, as the lower forums read it, showed a bitter service dispute instead.
The Law: How the Women Harassment Act Defined Harassment
The official title of the Women Harassment Act is the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. Before 2022, section 2(h) defined harassment as:
“any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favors or other verbal or written communication or physical conduct of a sexual nature or sexually demeaning attitudes, causing interference with work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment, or the attempt to punish the complainant for refusal to comply to such a request or is made a condition for employment.”
Other provisions were also in play:
- Section 4(4): penalties from censure to dismissal and fine.
- Sections 8 and 10: how the Ombudsperson (Mohtasib) inquires into a complaint and its powers.
- Sections 6 and 9: appeal to the Ombudsperson, then representation to the President or Governor.
- Section 509 PPC: a separate crime of insulting modesty or causing sexual harassment, punishable with up to three years, a fine up to Rs.500,000, or both (para 13).
- Article 12 of the Constitution: protection against punishment for conduct the law did not make punishable.
The Court’s Reasoning: Why “Sexual” Was Read Narrowly
Justice Mushir Alam was openly critical of how Parliament had drafted the law. The Court accepted that harassment based on race, gender, religion, disability or age violates human dignity, yet found the Women Harassment Act short-sighted because it targeted only a small slice of that harm (para 13).
Title and Preamble Could Not Beat the Definition
The Women Harassment Act’s title and preamble speak of “harassment”, not “sexual harassment”. The Court still held that the operative definition in section 2(h) controls. Bullying, humiliation or hostility, however grave and devastating, was not actionable unless it was shown to be sexual in nature (paras 15, 16 and 21).
The Complainant Had to Prove Sexual Intent
Because section 2(h) is a charging provision that leads to penalties, the Court said it could not widen it without offending Article 12 (para 21). The burden fell on the complainant to prove that the accused truly had a sexual intention or overture. Here, the Court agreed with the President and the High Court that she had not done so.
India’s Vishaka Model and the UK Equality Act
The Court noted that India’s Vishaka Guidelines and its 2013 workplace law also focus on sexual conduct, while the UK’s Equality Act 2010 covers harassment linked to many protected characteristics. It read the Code of Conduct’s three forms of harassment (abuse of authority, hostile environment and retaliation) as confirming the sexual focus (paras 16 to 18).
Why the Ombudsperson Could Not Give Her Job Back
This part of the 2021 judgment still matters most in practice. The Court held:
“None of the provisions of the Act, 2010 empowers the Federal Ombudsman to reinstate an aggrieved person back into service.” (para 23)
The Ombudsman also had no jurisdiction under the Women Harassment Act to inquire into disciplinary proceedings against an employee. Those had to be challenged before the right forum: a civil court, the High Court in writ jurisdiction, or a Service Tribunal, depending on the legal status of the employee and the employer.
Because she never challenged her termination (bartarfi) in such a forum, the Ombudsman’s reinstatement (bahali) order had nothing lawful to stand on. A strong grievance placed before the wrong forum produced no lasting relief.
The Lahore High Court drew the same boundary in a Punjab case, explained in our guide on the limits of the Harassment Ombudsperson’s powers, where a harassment forum could not cancel a PEEDA suspension.
Final Decision of the Supreme Court in 2021
On 5 July 2021 the Supreme Court dismissed Civil Petition No. 4570 of 2019. It found the President’s order, as upheld by the Islamabad High Court, well reasoned. The reinstatement, penalties and fine ordered by the Ombudsman therefore remained set aside.
What the Court Decided and What It Did Not
The Court decided that:
- actionable harassment under the original section 2(h) of the Women Harassment Act had to be sexual in nature;
- the complainant bore the burden of proving a sexual intention or overture; and
- the Ombudsman could neither reinstate her nor rule on disciplinary proceedings.
The Court did not decide that:
- she was treated fairly, or that her termination was lawful on its merits;
- her complaint was false or made in bad faith;
- she had no remedy anywhere, since the President had already pointed her to the service forum; or
- the 2022 amendment applied, because it came later.
After 2021: Review, Fresh Decision and the FCC Twist
January 2022: Parliament Rewrote Section 2(h)
The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2022 (Act V of 2022) received assent on 21 January 2022 and came into force at once, according to the official Gazette notification. Section 2(h) of the Women Harassment Act now has two limbs: (i) sexual conduct, now including stalking, cyberstalking, visual communication and derogatory gestures; and (ii) discrimination on the basis of gender, “which may or may not be sexual in nature”.
The amendment also made “complainant” mean any person, including former employees who were removed, dismissed or resigned. It widened “employee” and “workplace”, allowed audio and video evidence, and set 90-day limits for Ombudsperson decisions and for representations to the President or Governor.
June 2023: The Supreme Court Reviewed Itself
The complainant and the Attorney General for Pakistan both sought review. A bench of Justices Yahya Afridi, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Ayesha A. Malik heard the matter on 14 March 2023. The judgment, dated 6 June 2023 according to the President’s office, is reported as PLD 2023 SC 588.
The Court held that the word “sexual” has a second meaning, relating to gender, which the 2021 judgment never considered. Read that way, section 2(h) also covers sex-based discrimination and gender-based hostility. The narrow reading would also have made the Women Harassment Act useless for male complainants, whom it expressly protects. Harassment, the Court added, should be judged by the standard of a reasonable woman.
The review judgment set aside the 2021 judgment, the High Court judgment and the President’s 2018 order, and sent the representation back to the President. Because the Attorney General said the 2022 definition was prospective and federal only, this wider reading mattered for complaints from 2010 to 2022.
August 2023: The President Decides Afresh
The President held hearings in June and July 2023. According to the President’s official press release of 6 August 2023, he:
- upheld the Ombudsperson’s penalty of withholding promotion for two years on six PTV employees for creating a hostile and offensive work environment;
- set aside the Rs.100,000 fine;
- held her termination void ab initio, because disciplinary proceedings had been started without due process; and
- directed PTV to improve its anti-harassment protocols within 30 days.
Sexual harassment as such was not established; the case succeeded on hostile work environment. After three defeats, the camerawoman finally had a decision in her favour.
September 2026: The FCC Narrows the Old Law Again
On 16 September 2026, a three-member FCC bench (Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justices Ali Baqar Najafi and Syed Arshad Hussain Shah) decided CPLA Nos. 1011 and 1113 of 2025. In that 2012 National Bank of Pakistan case, the President had cut the Ombudsperson’s compulsory-retirement penalty to censure, and the Islamabad High Court had restored it in December 2024.
The FCC set aside the High Court judgment and restored the President’s order. Reading the pre-2022 section 2(h) of the Women Harassment Act, it held that conduct must be sexual in nature to be actionable, expressly disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s wider view. It added that the Ombudsperson cannot inquire into disciplinary proceedings beyond that scope.
This matters because, after the 27th Amendment, Article 189 makes FCC decisions on questions of law binding on all courts, including the Supreme Court. For older conduct, the strict 2021-style test is effectively back. Read the FCC judgment and our other Federal Constitutional Court judgments for the wider picture.
Which Version of the Women Harassment Act Applies to You?
Ask two questions before you file anything.
- When did the conduct happen? For conduct before 21 January 2022 under the federal Women Harassment Act, expect the FCC’s strict test: you must show a sexual element. For conduct after that date, section 2(h)(ii) expressly covers gender discrimination, sexual or not.
- Which law governs your workplace? Federal organisations and Islamabad fall under the federal Act and the Federal Ombudsperson (FOSPAH). Punjab and other provinces have their own adapted Acts and Ombudspersons.
In 2023 the Attorney General told the Supreme Court that provincial definitions had not been amended in the same way. If your province still uses the old wording, the FCC’s strict reading may apply there even to recent conduct. Check the current provincial text before you file.
The answer can also depend on whether your workplace falls under federal or Punjab law. Our complete guide to the Protection Against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2010 explains both, along with complaint steps and deadlines.
Practical Effect for Employees and Employers
For employees:
- A complaint under the Women Harassment Act is not a challenge to a termination, suspension or transfer. Challenge those orders separately and on time.
- Counter-blast defamation suits filed to frighten a complainant are now treated as retaliation under the amended Code of Conduct.
For employers and HR:
- Keep harassment inquiries separate from ordinary discipline, and record genuine reasons for any action taken while a complaint is pending.
- PTV’s experience shows that a careless disciplinary process against a complainant can itself be treated as harassment and later declared void.
For the complaint procedure, inquiry committee duties and penalties under the current law, see our guide to women harassment law in Pakistan.
Evidence and Next Steps If You Are Harassed at Work
Evidence to Preserve
- complete chats, emails and voice notes with dates, not cropped screenshots;
- call logs, CCTV preservation requests and attendance or visitor records;
- names of witnesses and what each person actually saw or heard;
- your appointment letter, service rules and appraisal history;
- every charge sheet, show-cause notice, transfer, suspension or termination order, with proof of the date you received it; and
- a dated chronology linking each incident to a document.
In its 2026 ruling, the FCC stressed credible material backed by convincing or independent evidence. Organised, dated proof now matters more than ever.
Deadlines You Cannot Miss
| Step under the federal Women Harassment Act | Time limit |
|---|---|
| Appeal against a Competent Authority’s decision to the Ombudsperson (section 6) | 30 days from written communication |
| Ombudsperson decides the case or appeal (section 8(6)) | 90 days |
| Representation to the President or Governor (section 9) | 30 days from communication |
| President or Governor decides the representation (section 9) | 90 days |
| Challenge to termination or another service order | Under your service, labour or civil law; often short, so act at once |
Common Mistakes
- Leaving a termination order unchallenged while the harassment case runs.
- Asking the Ombudsperson for reinstatement, arrears or seniority it may have no power to grant.
- Filing under the wrong law, federal instead of provincial or the reverse.
- Relying on the 2021 judgment or the 2022 amendment without checking when the conduct happened.
Before filing, read our step-by-step guide on how to file a harassment complaint in Pakistan.
Frequently Asked Questions about Women Harassment Act
What is the Women Harassment Act in Pakistan?
It is the common name for the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. It requires an Inquiry Committee in every covered organisation, creates an Ombudsperson to hear complaints and allows penalties from censure to dismissal. Since 2022, any person can complain. Use the full official title in pleadings.
Is PLD 2021 SC 784 still good law?
Not as a binding Supreme Court precedent, because it was set aside on review in PLD 2023 SC 588. However, the FCC’s 2026 ruling took a similar strict view of the pre-2022 definition and kept disciplinary matters outside the harassment forum, so its reasoning still carries weight for older cases.
What finally happened in the PTV camerawoman’s case?
After the 2023 review, the President reheard the matter. His office reported on 6 August 2023 that he upheld a two-year withholding of promotion for six PTV employees, set aside the fine and treated her termination as void ab initio for lack of due process. Sexual harassment as such was not established; the case succeeded on hostile work environment.
Does the Women Harassment Act cover non-sexual harassment?
For conduct after the 2022 amendment, yes: section 2(h)(ii) covers discrimination on the basis of gender, which may or may not be sexual. For conduct before 2022, the FCC held in 2026 that a sexual element is required. Ordinary rudeness or office disputes may still need service-law remedies rather than a harassment complaint.
Can the Ombudsperson give me my job back?
Do not count on it. The 2021 judgment found no power of reinstatement in the Women Harassment Act, and the FCC in 2026 said the Ombudsperson cannot inquire into disciplinary proceedings beyond its scope. The President did treat a termination as void in 2023, but the safe course is to challenge any termination separately and on time before the proper forum.
Who can file a complaint under the amended law?
Under the federal Women Harassment Act, any person aggrieved by harassment can complain, including former employees who were removed, dismissed or resigned, and a parent or guardian for a minor. “Employee” now covers contractual, gig, freelance, part-time and domestic workers, interns, students and trainees. Provincial Acts may use narrower words, so check the law that governs you.
What is the deadline to challenge an Ombudsperson’s decision?
Under section 9 of the Women Harassment Act, a representation to the President, or the Governor where applicable, must be made within 30 days of the decision being communicated, and it must be decided within 90 days. An appeal from an internal Competent Authority’s decision to the Ombudsperson also has a 30-day limit under section 6.
What evidence helps prove workplace harassment?
Complete messages, emails and voice notes with dates; witness names; CCTV or attendance records; earlier complaints; and every adverse order issued after you complained. Keep originals and backups, not only cropped screenshots, and link each incident to a document in a dated chronology.
Conclusion
The Women Harassment Act story of one PTV camerawoman is really three stories. In 2021, a narrow definition and the wrong forum wiped out a winning order. In 2023, the Supreme Court admitted its error and widened protection. In 2026, the FCC showed that the old wording still has teeth.
The lesson for you is practical. Check when the conduct happened and which law governs your workplace. Preserve evidence early. And never let a termination order go unchallenged while you wait for a harassment complaint to save your job.
Disclaimer: This article is for legal awareness only and is not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts, documents and evidence. For your specific matter, consult a qualified lawyer.