Nadia Naz v The President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Case Name: Nadia Naz v The President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Civil Review Petitions No. 255 and 570 of 2021

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Bench: Yahya Afridi J., Muhammad Ali Mazhar J., Ayesha A. Malik J.

Date of Hearing: 14 March 2023

Judgment By: Ayesha A. Malik J.

Introduction

This case represents a landmark ruling on workplace harassment and gender discrimination under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010.¹ The Supreme Court reassessed its previous, unduly narrow interpretation of “harassment,” which had confined actionable conduct solely to acts of a sexual nature.² Adopting a purposive approach, the Court held that harassment encompasses gender-based discrimination, hostile workplace conduct, and sexually demeaning attitudes. The ruling substantially expanded workplace protections in Pakistan, bringing domestic law into closer alignment with constitutional guarantees and Pakistan’s international human rights commitments.

Facts of the Case

Nadia Naz filed a complaint of workplace harassment under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. The matter was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court, which issued its judgment on July 5, 2021. That judgment held that the Act applies only to harassment of a sexual nature in the strict sense, ruling that hostile or discriminatory treatment in the workplace does not constitute harassment under the Act unless it is explicitly sexual in character.

Nadia Naz and the Attorney General for Pakistan were dissatisfied with this decision and filed review petitions before the Supreme Court. They argued that the Court had failed to consider the full scope of the word “sexual” and had not given effect to the purpose for which the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 was enacted. Their position was that the Act is not limited to preventing sexual advances or physical sexual conduct; it is equally concerned with ensuring that employees are not subjected to unfair treatment on account of their gender. The Act was designed to guarantee dignified and equitable working conditions for women.

The petitioners further contended that the Court’s earlier decision left employees without adequate protection. They urged that the term “sexual” should be interpreted broadly, to encompass conduct that is discriminatory or demeaning on the basis of a person’s gender. In their submission, the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 was intended to protect employees from all forms of gender-based mistreatment in the workplace, and the earlier judgment had fallen short of realising that legislative intent.

Legal Issues

1. Whether harassment under Section 2(h) of the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 is limited only to conduct of a sexual nature.
2. Whether the term “sexual” under Section 2(h) also encompasses gender-based discrimination and sexually demeaning attitudes.
3. Whether the earlier Supreme Court judgment dated 05 July 2021 contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners argued that the earlier judgment had adopted an unduly restrictive conception of harassment, one that did not accord with the legislative purpose of the Act. In their submission, the Court had failed to consider the meanings of “sexual” that relate to gender and the distinction between the sexes, rather than solely to sexual activity or physical conduct.

The Attorney General for Pakistan submitted that workplace harassment is not confined to physical touching or explicit sexual advances. It also includes conduct that demeans or disadvantages a person on account of their gender. The petitioners drew upon the legislative history of the Act, including parliamentary debates and the stated objects and reasons behind its enactment. They also relied upon international instruments — in particular the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)³ and the relevant ILO Conventions — as well as comparative jurisprudence from other jurisdictions. On the basis of this material, they argued that workplace harassment legislation is designed to address all forms of gender-based treatment and discrimination, not merely explicit sexual conduct. The petitioners urged that the Act’s protections should extend to the full spectrum of gender-based mistreatment in the workplace.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents supported the earlier judicial decision and argued that the original interpretation was correct, on the basis that harassment had properly been understood to require conduct or behaviour of a sexualised character. The respondents maintained that no broader interpretation was warranted. They contended that extending the definition of harassment beyond explicitly sexualised conduct would render the Act too expansive in scope and argued that the Supreme Court’s original judgment should be upheld.

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court undertook a careful textual analysis of the word “sexual” as used in Section 2(h) of the Act. The Court identified that the term carries two distinct meanings: first, it refers to intimacy or sexual activity; and second, it relates to gender or the distinction between the sexes. The Court found that the earlier judgment had considered only the first of these meanings, thereby artificially limiting the scope of what constitutes harassment under the Act.

The Court observed that workplace harassment frequently arises not from sexual desire but from entrenched power imbalances between men and women, from institutional hostility, and from the perpetuation of gendered hierarchies. It held that harassment may encompass the exploitation, humiliation, intimidation, and discrimination of employees on the basis of their gender — conduct that interferes with an individual’s ability to perform their work and creates an intolerable working environment.

The Court also considered the legislative history of the Act alongside Pakistan’s obligations under CEDAW and ILO Convention No. 111. From this material, the Court concluded that the legislature intended the Act to address all forms of gender-based discrimination and harassment in the workplace, not only those involving explicitly sexual conduct.

In undertaking a comparative analysis, the Court examined the approach taken by courts in India and Canada. It considered Vishaka & Others v State of Rajasthan⁴ and Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd,⁵ in both of which workplace harassment was treated as a form of discrimination on the basis of sex. The Court affirmed that anti-harassment laws are fundamentally directed at protecting the dignity, equality, and safety of employees in the workplace.

The Court further held that in assessing harassment claims, adjudicators must consider the experience from the perspective of the victim, applying the “reasonable woman standard” to properly evaluate the conduct in question. The purposive interpretation of “sexual” in the Act was central to this analysis.

Judgment and Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the review petitions and set aside:

• the earlier Supreme Court judgment dated 05 July 2021,
• the Islamabad High Court judgment dated 11 October 2019, and
• the President’s order dated 05 January 2018.

The matter was remanded to the President of Pakistan for a fresh decision in accordance with the law as interpreted in this judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the case is that harassment under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 includes gender-based discrimination, sexually demeaning attitudes, and hostile workplace conduct, and is not confined to acts of an explicitly sexual nature.

Critical Analysis

This judgment represents a significant step forward in the development of workplace harassment law in Pakistan. The Court’s decision ensures that employees — and women in particular — are protected not only from explicit sexual misconduct but from the broader range of conduct that degrades, excludes, or disadvantages them on the basis of their gender. The Court’s approach, grounded in constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality, reflects a commitment to giving rights-protecting legislation its fullest and most purposive scope.

A major strength of the judgment lies in its recognition that workplace harassment is frequently rooted in gender-based power relations rather than in sexual advances. By expanding the definition of harassment to include hostile working environments and discriminatory treatment, the Court has meaningfully strengthened the protections available to employees who face systemic gender-based mistreatment but whose experiences may not fall within a narrowly sexual definition.

The Court also drew constructively upon comparative jurisprudence and international human rights instruments, including CEDAW and the ILO Conventions. This approach brings Pakistani law into closer alignment with international standards of fairness and dignity in the workplace, reinforcing the legitimacy and persuasive authority of the decision.

One potential challenge arising from the expanded definition is the risk of uncertainty in its application. Courts and tribunals will need to exercise care in distinguishing genuine gender-based harassment from ordinary workplace conflict. Clear evidentiary standards — establishing that the conduct complained of was motivated by, or expressed through, the complainant’s gender — will be essential to ensuring that the expanded definition operates with sufficient precision in practice.

Conclusion

Nadia Naz v The President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is an important and consequential judgment. It has fundamentally reconceived the scope of workplace harassment law in Pakistan.

The Supreme Court made clear that harassment is not limited to explicitly sexual conduct but extends to any treatment that demeans, marginalises, or discriminates against an employee on the basis of their gender. The Court affirmed that creating a hostile or degrading work environment is equally impermissible. In doing so, it has made workplaces safer and more equitable for all employees. This decision will provide meaningful recourse to those in Pakistan who experience gender-based harassment or discrimination at work.

Grounded in the Constitution and reinforced by international human rights law, this judgment will serve as an authoritative guide for courts and tribunals in Pakistan when addressing harassment and discrimination in the workplace. The Nadia Naz case affirms the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of employees and will have a lasting impact on how harassment claims are approached and adjudicated in Pakistan.

Reference(S):

¹ Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010.

² Nadia Naz v The President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Civil Review Petitions No. 255 and 570 of 2021, para 3.

³ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

⁴ Vishaka & Others v State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 (Supreme Court of India).

⁵ Janzen v Platy Enterprises Ltd, [1989] 1 SCR 1252 (Supreme Court of Canada).