On September 11, 2025, a courtroom in the Islamabad High Court (IHC) became the locus of a heated clash between Advocate Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir, a human rights lawyer, and Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar of the IHC. The matter under consideration was a petition seeking removal of Dr. Mahrang Baloch from the Exit Control List (ECL).
During the hearing, Chief Justice Dogar reprimanded Mazari, telling her: “You should keep your mouth shut and stay within the limits of respect.” He warned of possible contempt of court proceedings. Anti-harassment and bar associations later condemned what they described as sexist, threatening, and degrading comments made by the CJ.
Following the exchange, Mazari requested that CCTV footage from Courtroom No. 1, between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on that day, be preserved and made available, citing the need for evidence of the incident.
Formal Complaint and the System’s Response
Mazari filed a complaint under the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010. She lodged this with the IHC’s harassment committee and also submitted a reference for judicial misconduct to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC).
Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, who heads the Women’s Harassment Inquiry Committee in the IHC and was appointed as the “competent authority” under the 2010 Act, initially took cognisance of Mazari’s complaint and constituted an inquiry committee comprising Justices Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, Arbab Muhammad Tahir, and herself.
However, within hours, the court administration de-notified Justice Imtiaz as the competent authority. She was replaced by Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas. The change came after Justice Imtiaz had already begun proceedings.
Mazari alleges that this removal was arbitrary and mala fide, intended to shield the Chief Justice from accountability. She provided an addendum to her complaint, stating that several arms of the court (registrar’s office, dispatch branch, the member inspection team) initially refused to forward her complaint to the competent authority. Only after significant resistance was the complaint formally accepted.
Read More: Shehbaz Sharif to Meet Donald Trump on UNGA Sidelines in Key Diplomatic Push
Allegations of Power Abuse and Reprisals
In her submissions to the SJC and related complaints, Mazari goes beyond merely documenting the courtroom exchange. She claims that soon after filing her harassment complaint, a case was lodged against her in the National Cyber Crime Investigation Authority (NCCIA). A special prosecution team was formed, and a challan (formal charge sheet) was submitted in trial court in a case concerning incidents allegedly from 2021-2025. She says she has not yet received formal notice through court procedures, but that media reports and verbal notices indicate she’ll be summoned.
Mazari also contends that some of her cases which had not been fixed for hearing were suddenly allocated to be heard before Chief Justice Dogar after the complaint was filed. Furthermore, when a proxy counsel appeared for her and requested transfer of a case under grounds of the pending harassment complaint, the Judge refused and reportedly dragged the proxy counsel into discussions about the harassment incident itself. The request was refused because she, the principal counsel, had not appeared; the case was adjourned.
Bar Council Involvement: License Under Threat
Parallel to the judicial proceedings, a reference has been filed with the Islamabad Bar Council by Advocate Adnan Iqbal seeking cancellation of Mazari’s license to practice law. The allegations include “anti-state activities”, smear campaigns against state functionaries, instigating hatred toward institutions, and alleged connections with banned organizations.
The reference invokes Section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, and relevant disciplinary rules. It demands that her license be suspended pending inquiry, and potentially canceled permanently if the allegations are substantiated.
Institutional Norms and Criticism
Lawyers’ associations — including the Lahore High Court Bar Association, Karachi Bar Association, Women’s Action Forum, among others — have publicly condemned Chief Justice Dogar’s actions in this affair. Common criticisms include that his remarks were misogynistic, an abuse of judicial power, undermining of lawyer-client dynamics, and violation of judicial conduct codes.
Chief Justice Dogar has made attempts at clarification, stating that his words were taken out of context. He has described Mazari as being like a daughter, saying that he was “explaining things … as an elder”.
So, Is This About One Abusive Judge or Systemic Issues?
While the confrontation appears to be between Imaan Mazari and Chief Justice Dogar, the unfolding events suggest deeper systemic concerns within Pakistan’s superior judiciary:
- Administrative control over harassment complaints: The ability of the Chief Justice and court administration to re-assign or strip powers from the “competent authority” under the harassment law raises questions about impartiality and checks on judicial power. The fact that Justice Imtiaz was removed hours after taking up the complaint points to potential conflicts of interest and lack of protective mechanisms.
- Gender dynamics and patriarchy: The behaviour attributed to Justice Dogar — referring to a female lawyer as “child”, telling her to stay quiet, threatening contempt, and dragging her husband (also a lawyer) into the proceedings — is being interpreted by many as rooted in deeply patriarchal norms about deference, gender roles, and authority. These are not merely rhetorical; Mazari’s complaint stresses that these remarks were public, humiliating, and intended to intimidate.
- Transparency and process: Mazari’s request for CCTV footage and documentation, and reports of obstruction by court staff (registrar, dispatch) highlight a lack of transparency. The law provides formal routes for harassment complaints (Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010), but whether these routes are protected from administrative interference is under scrutiny.
- Retaliation risks: The lodging of what Mazari calls potentially spurious or hastily filed cases against her (through NCCIA, special prosecution team) suggests that legal tactics may be used to punish dissent or challenge. If true, it raises serious concerns over the misuse of prosecutorial or investigative powers.
What’s At Stake
The case is is a test of whether the harassment law can protect a female lawyer—even one with visibility—from power abuse. It also raises issues of free speech, professional integrity, and personal risk. The credibility of superior courts depends heavily on perceptions of fairness, impartiality, and internal accountability. This case could set a precedent for how harassment complaints against judges are handled — whether they remain token gestures, or whether they lead to meaningful discipline when due process is followed.
If judicial and administrative powers can override harassment laws or shift investigators to protect powerful individuals, then the protection laws become hollow. The boundary between judicial independence and absolute unchecked power becomes crucial. This incident has energized bar associations, women’s rights activists, and legal observers. Their responses may shape public awareness and pressure for reform.
Current Status & What Must Happen
As of the latest reporting, Mazari’s complaint remains under consideration by the Islamabad High Court’s harassment committee and has been formally submitted to the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC). Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz, who had initially assumed jurisdiction as the competent authority under the 2010 Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, has since been removed from that role after initiating an inquiry, with her powers transferred to Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas. At the same time, proceedings against Mazari herself are unfolding: a reference seeking the cancellation of her licence to practice law has been filed before the Islamabad Bar Council, with allegations of “anti-state activities” and misconduct.
For accountability and justice to carry credibility, several steps appear essential. The SJC must transparently evaluate Mazari’s complaint, including her addendum detailing administrative interference. An independent and impartial inquiry should determine whether Chief Justice Dogar’s remarks and subsequent actions breach the judicial code of conduct.
It is also vital that Mazari and any witnesses receive protection from reprisals, given the pattern of legal and institutional pressures she has described. Beyond this individual case, the judiciary must establish clear safeguards to ensure harassment complaint procedures cannot be derailed by administrative reshuffling, especially in cases where the accused holds senior judicial office. Finally, bar councils and legal oversight bodies must enforce disciplinary rules consistently, ensuring they are not misused as political tools to suppress dissenting lawyers.
How the Supreme Judicial Council responds to this case may signal whether Pakistan’s judicial system is moving toward stronger internal checks and protection for those within its ranks — or whether entrenched hierarchies remain largely unchecked.