Harassment Scandal Rocks Pakistan’s Universities

Nadeem Tanoli

Islamabad: On paper, Pakistan’s educational institutions have a range of mechanisms designed to protect students and staff from harassment. In practice, however, the system appears to be struggling to turn those safeguards into effective protection.
The federal government has told Parliament that **191 harassment cases were reported in 44 universities**, with 11 cases still under investigation. While officials maintain that most complaints have been resolved, the figures have renewed questions about how effectively universities are implementing harassment policies and whether victims can obtain justice without facing institutional pressure.
The issue is not necessarily the absence of rules. Rather, it is the gap between the protections prescribed by law and what victims experience when they attempt to use them.
Rules exist, accountability remains a question
Public and private universities are required to follow the Higher Education Commission’s (HEC) harassment protection policy, which establishes procedures for filing complaints, constituting inquiry committees and taking disciplinary action against those found responsible.
The policy has also been revised to address weaknesses identified over the years.
Yet the continued emergence of harassment cases, coupled with pending inquiries, raises questions about the effectiveness of these mechanisms.
For victims, the conclusion of an inquiry does not automatically mean that justice has been served. Concerns have also been raised over the independence of internal inquiry committees and whether students and employees feel sufficiently protected when complaints involve influential members of an institution.
The contrast between universities and private schools in Islamabad adds another layer to the debate.
Institutions regulated by the Islamabad Capital Territory Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Authority (ICT-PEIRA) have reported zero harassment cases. While the figure may appear encouraging, rights advocates caution that an absence of complaints cannot necessarily be interpreted as an absence of harassment.
It could instead point to barriers that prevent victims from reporting incidents.
When reporting becomes another hurdle
Official mechanisms provide several routes for filing complaints. Students can approach institutional harassment committees through formal or informal channels, while faculty members and administrators who receive complaints are required to refer them to the appropriate authorities.
Formal complaints are supposed to be acknowledged within 24 hours, with inquiries completed within 30 days.
Victims can also approach the federal Ombudsperson under the relevant harassment legislation when they believe an institution has failed to respond adequately.
Despite these avenues, reporting can be difficult.
Victims may fear retaliation, worry about confidentiality or lack confidence in the people responsible for investigating their complaints. Concerns over institutional support and the perceived impartiality of inquiry committees can further discourage reporting.
The existence of multiple complaint channels can also create uncertainty. In Islamabad’s private educational sector, for example, complaints can be submitted through ICT-PEIRA email channels, the Pakistan Citizen’s Portal/PMDU system and in-person mechanisms.
While multiple options are intended to make reporting easier, overlapping systems can also make responsibility less clear and potentially provide institutions with opportunities to pass complaints from one mechanism to another.
Protection does not always reach the classroom
The challenges are not limited to universities.
Educational institutions under the Federal Directorate of Education (FDE) have established Counter Harassment and Anti-Bullying Committees, along with formal inquiry committees operating under federal harassment legislation.
These bodies can recommend or provide interim measures intended to protect complainants while an investigation is underway.
Such measures include changes to timetables, alternative examination arrangements, counselling and medical assistance, adjustments to classroom or workplace assignments and no-contact orders.
The effectiveness of such measures, however, depends on how quickly and consistently institutions apply them.
Reports from victims and rights advocates suggest that protective arrangements are not always provided promptly, potentially leaving complainants exposed to the same environment or individuals involved in their complaints.
For a student, a policy that promises protection but is implemented only after prolonged delays can offer little reassurance.
Awareness without accountability
The government has also attempted to address harassment and abuse through awareness initiatives.
Authorities say campaigns have been conducted across **432 federal educational institutions**, including the display of Zainab Alert Helpline information, installation of complaint boxes, appointment of focal persons and training programmes focused on gender sensitivity.
Life Skills Based Education programmes have also been introduced to help children recognise inappropriate or unsafe behaviour.
Such initiatives can help students understand their rights and encourage reporting. But awareness alone cannot resolve institutional weaknesses.
If a student knows how to report harassment but fears retaliation after doing so, the existence of a complaint box or helpline may not be enough.
Similarly, training programmes cannot substitute for independent investigations, transparent procedures and meaningful consequences when misconduct is established.
The case for independent oversight
The disclosure of 191 university harassment cases has therefore shifted attention from whether Pakistan has harassment policies to whether those policies are capable of delivering credible protection.
Lawmakers, parents and rights activists are increasingly calling for stronger external oversight, independent inquiry mechanisms and greater transparency in the handling of complaints.
They are also seeking stronger safeguards for victims and whistleblowers so that individuals who report harassment are not exposed to retaliation or institutional discrimination.
One of the central challenges is encouraging reporting while ensuring that those who come forward do not become more vulnerable as a result.
From policy to practice
The figures emerging from universities do not necessarily represent the full scale of harassment in Pakistan’s education system. Reported cases reflect only incidents that enter formal or recognised complaint channels, while fear, stigma, social pressure and distrust in institutional mechanisms can keep many cases hidden.
This makes the 191 cases both a measure of the problem and a possible indication of the limitations of the reporting system.
Pakistan has established laws, policies, committees, complaint channels and awareness programmes. The next challenge is ensuring that these mechanisms function independently, transparently and consistently.
A safe educational environment cannot be created simply by issuing another policy or establishing another committee. Students and staff need confidence that complaints will be heard confidentially, investigations will be impartial, interim protection will be available and proven violations will have consequences.
The real test of Pakistan’s harassment framework, therefore, is not how many policies exist. It is whether a student facing harassment can report it without fear, and whether the institution can deliver justice without compromising that student’s safety, dignity or education.