Introduction:

In the case of WP(C) Diary No. 52330-2023, the Supreme Court addressed the allegations of sexual harassment made by a female advocate against a male advocate. The Court directed counselling for the petitioner at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, emphasizing the sensitivity of the matter. The identities of the parties were ordered to be suppressed for privacy reasons, with additional directives to prevent communication between the parties and an inquiry by the Gender Sensitization Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC).

Arguments from Both Sides:

The female advocate alleged sexual harassment and sought intervention from the Court. Respondent No.2, the male advocate, raised concerns about the petitioner’s social media activity, claiming she disclosed case details and his identity. The Court urged compliance with the previous order on suppressing identities, emphasizing the need to maintain confidentiality.

Court’s Judgment:

The Bench stressed the importance of preserving anonymity and instructed the petitioner to avoid public disclosure of identities or case details. Additionally, it highlighted the involvement of a female member of the Bar Association Executive Committee, suggesting her association with the case to provide assistance. The Court reaffirmed the direction for counselling, mandating the petitioner’s visit to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre accompanied by her legal representative, emphasizing adherence to confidentiality and privacy.