A three-member Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Azmat Saeed has taken cognizance of some recent reports that spoke of weaknesses in the Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2010, directing the federal and provincial governments to make the law stronger. Among some other issues, rights activists have been arguing that the language of the law is rather vague, and that it does not clearly define what actually constitutes sexual harassment. That though does not seem to be a fair criticism considering that the law clearly states "harassment means any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favours 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."
The problem is with implementation of prevention strategies. Under the law, for instance, public and private sector organisations are required to form inquiry committees to deal with complaints and take action against an accused, which can range from demotion to dismissal from service, or a fine, depending on the degree of offense. Yet nine years after enactment of the law, it has to be seen whether any organisation has established such committee. In fact, while appearing before the SC bench last Wednesday, Federal Ombudsperson for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, Kashmala Tariq, pointed out that even the apex court had not constituted any such committee. The law also provides for an aggrieved person to directly approach the ombudsperson's office to lodge a complaint. Yet it is rarely invoked. In fact, the Federal Ombudsperson claimed that no complaint was registered about sexual harassment in Sindh. Unsurprisingly, the court rejected her claim, stating the obvious that the absence of complaints did not mean no issue of harassment existed as the victim party is always hesitant to highlight complaints in the open.
The forgoing amply demonstrates that whereas there is need to simplify the procedure for complaints, it is equally important for the government, employers, as well as civil society to ensure the law is effectively enforced, too. It is worth noting that those who see no wrong in pestering women in the workplace stop their own female relatives from taking up jobs for fear they could similarly be harassed by other men. The necessity of creating a safe work environment cannot be emphasised enough. That is important not only to protect women who are already working from undesirable pressures, but also to encourage greater woman participation in all fields of national endeavour.