Excessive CCTV Surveillance is Workplace Harassment, Rules Pakistan’s Federal Ombudsperson

In a landmark decision that significantly clarifies the boundaries of employee monitoring, the Federal Ombudsperson for Protection Against Harassment (FOSPAH) has ruled that the excessive and targeted use of CCTV surveillance constitutes workplace harassment. This pivotal judgment came in response to a complaint filed by a female employee against a private educational institute in Rawalpindi, setting a powerful precedent for employee rights and privacy across Pakistan.

The Case: Surveillance as a Tool of Intimidation

The case was brought forward by a female staff member who alleged a persistent campaign of intimidation and harassment orchestrated by the institution’s chief executive officer (CEO). The complainant detailed how she was subjected to constant and intrusive monitoring via the workplace’s CCTV system. The harassment escalated when the CEO began sending CCTV images directly to her, an act she described as a method of control and psychological pressure. She argued that this surveillance was not for general security but was specifically weaponized against her, creating a hostile and toxic work environment.

FOSPAH, under the leadership of Ombudsperson Fauzia Viquar, launched a thorough investigation into the matter. After carefully examining the evidence presented by both parties, the ombudsperson’s office concluded that the surveillance was indeed unwarranted, discriminatory, and served no legitimate professional purpose. The findings established that the monitoring went far beyond reasonable security measures and was used to single out and intimidate the complainant.

The Verdict and Its Directives

The verdict was unequivocal. FOSPAH declared the CEO’s conduct a clear violation under The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010. The ruling emphasized that such actions create an environment of fear and undermine the dignity of an employee. Consequently, Ombudsperson Fauzia Viquar imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on the CEO, which is to be paid as compensation to the victim for the distress and harassment she endured.

In addition to the financial penalty, the ombudsperson issued a formal censure against the CEO, officially reprimanding his misconduct. The ruling also mandated comprehensive institutional reforms to prevent future occurrences of such behavior. The educational institute was directed to immediately establish an internal Inquiry Committee, as required by law, to handle harassment complaints. Furthermore, the institute must now prominently display a detailed code of conduct, in both English and Urdu, to ensure all employees are aware of their rights and the established protocols for reporting harassment.

Redefining Workplace Harassment

This decision by FOSPAH serves as a critical expansion of the legal definition of workplace harassment in Pakistan. The ombudsperson’s office stressed that harassment is not limited to inappropriate advances or physical misconduct. It encompasses a broad range of behaviors, including any act that damages an individual’s dignity, violates their privacy, or instills fear and insecurity in the workplace.

“This ruling reinforces that surveillance cannot be weaponized to target or control staff. Respect for privacy and dignity is a core workplace right,” the ombudsperson’s office stated in a powerful press release following the decision.

The ruling sends a clear message to employers across all sectors: while CCTV cameras are a legitimate tool for ensuring security and safety, their misuse as an instrument of power, control, or intimidation is illegal. The decision highlights the necessity for employers to strike a balance between legitimate security concerns and the fundamental right of employees to privacy and a respectful work environment. It establishes that the intent behind surveillance matters, and when used to create a hostile atmosphere for a specific employee, it crosses the line into harassment.

Implications for Employers and Employees

This landmark judgment has far-reaching implications. For employees, it provides a renewed sense of protection and clarifies that they have legal recourse against psychological harassment conducted through technological means. It empowers them to challenge environments where they feel constantly watched, judged, or intimidated by invasive monitoring.

For employers, this ruling is a call to action. Companies must review their surveillance policies to ensure they are fair, non-discriminatory, and clearly communicated to all staff. A legitimate security policy should involve monitoring common areas for safety purposes, not tracking the every move of individual employees to exert pressure. This case underscores the importance of fostering a culture of trust and respect, rather than one of suspicion and control. Organizations are now on notice that they must implement and enforce robust anti-harassment policies that explicitly address modern forms of misconduct, including the misuse of technology.

Ultimately, FOSPAH’s decision champions the principle that a healthy and productive workplace is one where employees feel safe, respected, and valued—not one where they are under constant, unwarranted scrutiny. This verdict is a significant step forward in protecting the dignity of workers in the digital age.