Rights activist and lawyer Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir on Monday approached an inquiry committee of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) and the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) against IHC Chief Justice Sarfraz Dogar following last week’s altercation between them.
On Thursday, Justice Dogar had warned Mazari of a contempt of court case and was reported to have gone as far as passing warning remarks along the lines of “getting a hold of her”. Multiple lawyers’ bodies had issued condemnatory statements and called for the judge’s dismissal from the post of the IHC top judge.
In a post on X today, the lawyer, who is known to be vocal in her criticism of Pakistani authorities, said she had filed a complaint against the judge before the IHC’s workplace harassment committee and a reference for misconduct before the SJC.
The complaint, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com, was filed under Section 4 (procedure for holding inquiry) of the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010.
A circular issued later in the day read that Justices Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Saman Rafat Imtiaz would be members of the inquiry committee that would investigate harassment complaints against fellow IHC judges.
A later notification from the IHC registrar said Justice Dogar nominated Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas as the competent authority under the act, replacing Justice Imtiaz who was appointed to the role in July. Justice Minhas took his oath as an IHC judge in January.
As per the 2010 act, the inquiry committee conducts the investigation into the harassment allegations and then forwards it to the competent authority for final determination and application.
The complaint requested the IHC inquiry committee to initiate an investigation.
It further pleaded 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.
“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.”
The complaint said last week’s incident was a “part of the broader pattern of intimidation and degrading treatment meted out to the complainant at the hands of the respondent chief justice, in complete abuse of his position of authority. The respondent chief justice has repeatedly, in courtrooms full of litigants, lawyers, court staff and police officials, aggressively (and often in a vulgar manner) asserted his power (which he is meant to exercise as a trust for the people of Pakistan, not to assert his personal fiefdom)”.
It further said that “apart from the fact that this conduct is completely unbecoming of a judge, the complainant was clearly subjected to a hostile, degrading and threatening work environment by the respondent chief justice, in whose court she was required to appear before for her client. The treatment meted out to the complainant was in full public view, and the complainant’s husband and lawyer colleagues”.
The complaint pointed out to the public condemnation and criticism in the wake of the “sexist, discriminatory and threatening remarks”, referring to the statements from various lawyer associations.
It added that instead of “acknowledging and apologising for his threatening, sexist and intimidating conduct, the respondent chief justice once again made further sexist remarks against the complainant, in her absence, in his courtroom, in an entirely unconnected case, the very next day on Sept 12 … The respondent chief justice continued to abuse his authority/position in once again threatening the complainant in her absence that he would initiate contempt of court proceedings against her, whilst also stating that he did not want to ruin her career and attempting to ridicule her by calling her a ‘child’ in a courtroom full of people, when the complainant is a well-respected lawyer in the community”.
The complaint read that the “sexist comments taken together with repeated threats of ‘contempt of court’ and ‘not wanting to destroy’ the ‘female child’s career’ are not only appalling but shocking coming from someone holding the office of chief justice of a constitutional court, meant to uphold the fundamental rights of all citizens”.
It argued 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 respondent chief justice’s conduct on Sept 11 and 12 constitutes ‘verbal communication’ of a ‘sexually demeaning attitude’ and ‘derogatory’ expression that caused ‘interference with work performance’ and also created ‘an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment’. Further, the sexist, discriminatory and threatening conduct of the respondent chief justice also constitutes ‘discrimination on the basis of gender’ which does not necessarily have to be ‘sexual in nature’ but which ‘may embody a discriminatory and prejudicial mind set or notion, resulting in discriminatory behaviour’,” the complaint argued.
It added that Mazari was “made to feel extremely uncomfortable in her workplace and was at the receiving end of hostile, threatening and sexist language used against her by the respondent chief justice in an open court” in the presence of lawyers, police officials, journalists and litigants.
