Workplace harassment: Mazari files ‘grievance’ letter over inaction on complaint against Justice Dogar

ISLAMABAD: Human rights activist and lawyer Imaan Mazari, on Friday, filed a ‘grievance’ letter regarding inaction on her workplace harassment complaint against Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court (IHC) Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, registered under the Workplace Harassment Act 2010.

In the letter addressed to Justice Inaam Amin Minhas, Mazari stated: “I write to you to follow up regarding my workplace harassment complaint against IHC Chief Justice Sarfaraz Dogar, lodged on 15 September 2025.”

She added that it merited mention that Justice Saman Riffat was appointed as the competent authority by the IHC Chief Justice vide Notification dated 17 July 2025.

After she notified a three-member committee on 15 September 2025 (as required under the 2010 Act), you (Justice Inaam Amin Minhas) were appointed by Justice Dogar as the competent authority (which in itself is unlawful, as the accused cannot alter the competent authority or impede my complaint by abusing his position of authority).

She also said, “Under the 2010 Act, you were required to communicate the charges to the accused within three days of receipt of the complaint, and the accused was required to submit a written defence within seven days from when the charge was communicated to him. I am unaware of the status of my complaint, as I have not been informed by the competent authority in this regard.”

“In the meantime, I must bring to your notice continuing acts of reprisal against me by the accused after I lodged my workplace harassment complaint. As you must be aware, such reprisals are strictly prohibited under the 2010 Act, and as the competent authority, you are required to ensure that I am not subjected to such reprisals,” maintained the applicant.

Mazari mentioned that on 16 September 2025 (one day after she lodged her workplace harassment complaint), the IHC Chief Justice fixed her client, Dr Mahrang Baloch’s case for hearing before him. Proxy counsel appeared on her behalf and requested the IHC Chief Justice to transfer the case to any other bench due to the pendency of her workplace harassment complaint against the accused and also because she had filed a complaint against the IHC Chief Justice before the Supreme Judicial Council.

She further said that Justice Dogar refused to transfer the case, requiring her to appear before him even though, under the law, no woman subjected to such treatment would be required to be in the presence of her alleged harasser.

“The facts and circumstances clearly depict the brazen abuse of authority by the IHC CJ to shield himself from inquiry in my complaint. Even more concerning is the fact that my application, dated 13 September 2025, seeking preservation of CCTV footage, remains unanswered. I have yet to be provided the CCTV footage, and, in this regard, I request your immediate intervention in securing this crucial evidence,” said the lawyer.

In light of the aforementioned and the clear urgency in the matter, she requested the redressal of her grievances at the earliest.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025