By Terence J Sigamony

Copyright brecorder

ISLAMABAD: Human Rights activist and lawyer Imaan Mazari approached Islamabad High Court (IHC) harassment committee against the IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar following last week’s heated debate between them.

Imaan Mazari on Monday filed the complaint against the judge before the IHC’s workplace harassment committee. She filed the complaint under Section 4 (procedure for holding inquiry) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010.

The complaint requested the IHC inquiry committee to initiate an investigation. It further requested the committee to declare she was “subjected to sexist, discriminatory, hostile, threatening, intimidating and unreasonable behaviour at the hands of the respondent chief justice” and declare that Justice Dogar was “guilty of harassing the complainant and consequently issue appropriate recommendations to the competent authority (i.e. SJC) against the respondent as envisaged under Section 4(4) of the 2010 act”.

It also requested the committee to grant any other relief “deemed fair and reasonable in the circumstances” in her favour.

The complaint said that the judge had engaged in an “unprovoked and unnecessary tirade” against her during last week’s proceedings.

“Even after the incident, the complainant felt insulted, humiliated and degraded as a result of the respondent chief justice’s brazen abuse of authority. The sentiment was shared by the complainant’s husband and lawyer colleagues who were present in the courtroom and witnessed the exchange. A collective sense of disbelief and anger was expressed at the unprecedented scenes,” said Mazari.

“Unfortunately, while the respondent chief justice had earlier made clear to the complainant that he held a personal grudge/bias against her (as reflected in his conduct and remarks in multiple cases fixed before him), his conduct on September 11 crossed all limits of decency,” the complaint said, adding that in an earlier case involving journalist Asad Ali Toor on August 12, “the respondent chief justice had passed inappropriate and personal remarks towards the complainant, including: ‘Why are you so stubborn?’ Journalists and court reporters, along with the complainant’s husband, Hadi Ali Chattha, were witnesses to the same.”

Mazari contended that the judge’s conduct, “apart from being clear misconduct — also falls within the ambit of workplace harassment. Not only did the respondent chief justice make clear his views on women in open court but he also abused his position of authority to harass, intimidate, threaten and humiliate the complainant in a place where she is required to appear every day by virtue of her job/profession as a lawyer”.

It said the chief justice’s conduct fell within the definition of “harassment” in the 2010 act.

The complaint said the Thursday incident was a “glimpse of the respondent chief justice’s opinions on women, particularly how he views them as possessions of husbands, to be controlled and reigned in when he feels they are overstepping their gender roles.

It also said, “The respondent chief justice’s conduct is the clearest possible manifestation of a patriarchal mindset, which cannot be tolerated, especially in the superior judiciary which is meant to safeguard citizens’ constitutional rights, including the right to basic human dignity. The conduct of the respondent chief justice on Sept 12 was yet another manifestation of his patriarchal mindset … once again attempting to humiliate and demean her in a professional setting where she is required to appear every day”.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025