DESPITE well-meaning efforts to combat harassment in academic spaces, Pakistan’s legal and institutional framework remains marred by contradictions.
A glaring example is the lack of coherence between the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 and the Higher Education Commission’s (HEC) 2020 Policy on Protection Against Sexual Harassment in Higher Education Institutions.
While both aim to provide redress and safe working environments, their inconsistencies risk weakening the cause they intend to support.
The 2010 Act is a federal law, legally binding across all sectors and institutions in Pakistan.
It provides a clear definition of harassment and outlines a formal inquiry mechanism through a three-member committee, with at least one female and defines workplace harassment primarily as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
On the other hand, the HEC’s 2020 policy though progressive in its language broadens the definition of harassment to include gender-based discrimination, offensive remarks and power abuse.
While this inclusive approach is commendable, it inadvertently expands the scope beyond the statutory limits set by the 2010 Act.
Furthermore, the policy at times allows flexibility in procedures, such as the composition of inquiry committees and confidentiality protocols, which may not align with the rigid legal structure prescribed in the law.
These discrepancies raise serious legal challenges.
For instance, if a case is handled under HEC policy in a way that conflicts with the due process requirements of the 2010 Act, it can be struck down in court for violating procedural fairness or exceeding legal jurisdiction.
Courts, in past rulings, have emphasized that institutional policies must conform to the parent law.
Any deviation from the Protection against Harassment Act can be challenged, potentially nullifying the inquiry findings and causing undue distress to both complainants and respondents.
Additionally, differences in appeal mechanisms and definitions of “employee” and “student” create confusion.
The Act does not specifically mention students as protected individuals, whereas the HEC policy includes them.
This opens another legal grey area: Can students seek remedy under a law that technically doesn’t name them?
In judicial proceedings, such inconsistencies can lead to prolonged litigation, dismissal of legitimate cases, or misuse of policy.
The risk is not just academic; it affects real people facing trauma and injustice, whose right to a timely and effective remedy is compromised by a fractured system.
What is needed is harmonization.
Either the 2010 Act must be amended to expand its scope in line with evolving institutional realities, or the HEC must revise its policy to strictly operate within the legal framework.
Without this, institutions are left implementing policies that may be well-intended but legally vulnerable.
Until then, the promise of safe and dignified learning environments for women and marginalized groups will remain only partially fulfilled.
—The writer is a legal researcher and academic with a special interest in gender justice, workplace ethics and higher education policy in Pakistan ([email protected])
