{
  "id": 11839668,
  "title": "The court that could not see",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/04/the-court-that-could-not-see",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-10-04T04:14:36.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Dawn",
    "slug": "dawn",
    "url": "https://www.dawn.com/news/2034652/the-court-that-could-not-see"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan dismissed a harassment case against senior bankers who allegedly sketched private parts on their desks and made sexual remarks towards female colleagues. The court ruled that harassment under the 2010 workplace harassment law only applies to sexual conduct. However, this conclusion contradicts both the Act's preamble and the Supreme Court's interpretation in Nadia Naz, which defines sexually demeaning attitudes as demeaning a person based on their sex. The court's decision disregarded key legal provisions in India and the United States, which consider gender-based harassment, including sexual harassment, as a violation of equality and dignity. The court also ignored the 2022 amendment to the law that covers gender discrimination. The bench's lack of representation of women and concerns over the court's formation and independence cast doubt on the legitimacy of the decision.",
  "summary": "WITNESSES testified that a senior banker sketched private parts on the glass of his desk, asked a woman colleague to name them, and threatened to tear off her clothes if she wore a particular outfit again. Another officer made indecent remarks about her attire before colleagues. The ombudsperson found the charges proved; the Islamabad High Court agreed. On Sept 16, the Federal Constitutional…",
  "key_points": [
    "Federal Constitutional Court dismisses harassment case against senior bankers.",
    "Court rules harassment applies only to sexual conduct, contradicting Act's preamble.",
    "Decision disregards gender-based harassment provisions in India and US laws."
  ],
  "editors_take": "The court's narrow interpretation of harassment limits the scope of protection for female colleagues, contradicting the law's preamble and previous Supreme Court rulings, and ignoring international standards and recent amendments.",
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}