Pakistan’s workplace harassment law has treated sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination as the same offense for years. A Supreme Court ruling and a 2022 amendment now require the legal system to address whether they should remain combined.

The law’s shifting definition

The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, initially defined harassment as conduct of a sexual nature. A 2022 amendment broadened the definition to include gender-based discrimination, even without any sexual element.

The change followed years of legal uncertainty. In 2021, the Supreme Court decided in Nadia Naz v. The President that harassment required proof of sexual intent. The ruling upheld lower court decisions dismissing Naz’s complaint, which involved administrative retaliation and a hostile work environment but no sexual conduct. While the court recognized the law’s narrow scope, it stated it could not reinterpret the statute.

Distinct wrongs under one label

The law now covers both sexual harassment and gender discrimination within the same definition. The Supreme Court’s decision in Nadia Naz v. The President acknowledged the restrictive interpretation of the pre-2022 definition, but the 2022 amendment expanded its scope. While sexual harassment often reinforces power imbalances, its effects differ from those of discrimination.

Take two employees. One endures repeated sexual advances from a supervisor. The other is passed over for promotion because her manager assumes women are less committed. Both situations are harmful, yet the first involves coercion and violation, while the second stems from systemic bias. The law applies identical procedures and penalties to both.

This approach conflicts with the fair labeling principle, which holds that offenses should reflect their severity. Pakistan’s penal code distinguishes theft, extortion, and robbery, even though all involve unlawful deprivation. The same distinction should apply to workplace misconduct.

Related: The law firm says it has filed the first ever Camp Lejeune class-action lawsuit

Evidence requirements also vary. Gender discrimination cases often depend on patterns of behavior or circumstantial proof. Sexual harassment cases typically demand more direct evidence—witnesses, messages, or physical proof. Combining them risks weakening the seriousness of either offense.

Global models and local decisions

Pakistani lawmakers took a different approach. The 2022 amendment solidified the merger of sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination under the same definition. The outcome is a legal framework that addresses both issues within a single category.

The court’s decision in Nadia Naz v. The President ensured the pre-2022 definition was narrowly construed, but the amendment now allows victims of gender discrimination to seek redress under the Act. However, it raises questions about whether the law can effectively address both issues while they remain under the same legal category.

For now, the Act functions as a single tool for two different problems. Until lawmakers create separate legal definitions, it may not serve either issue as effectively as needed.

A similar challenge arose in the U.S. when courts examined laws targeting boycotts. While the contexts differ, both cases highlight the difficulty of applying broad legal definitions to distinct forms of harm.