THE interim government’s approval of the Workplace and Educational Institutions Sexual Harassment Prevention Ordinance 2026, alongside the Domestic Violence Prevention Ordinance 2026, is a welcome and long-overdue step towards updating legal response to gender-based violence in line with contemporary realities. Most notably, the new framework formally recognises sexual harassment committed through digital means and on online platforms as a punishable offence, acknowledging how abuse has expanded beyond physical spaces into virtual ones. The sexual harassment ordinance mandates the formation of internal complaints committees at work and educational institutions, introduces a 90-day time frame for the disposal of complaints and adopts a broad definition of harassment encompassing physical, verbal, non-verbal, mental, suggestive and digital conduct. It also provides for local complaints committees in informal sectors where institutional mechanism may be absent, alongside monitoring bodies and a dedicated support fund. In parallel, the Domestic Violence Prevention Ordinance repeals the 2010 law and widens the legal understanding of domestic violence to include psychological, economic and digitally mediated abuse. It guarantees survivors access to shelter, medical and psychological care, legal aid and emergency protection while setting time-bound procedures aimed at resolving cases in 60 working days.
However, the effectiveness of the ordinances will ultimately depend less on their breadth than on the seriousness of their enforcement. Experience of progressive legislation shows that ambitious legal frameworks often falter at the implementation stage, weakened by limited institutional capacity, bureaucratic inertia and uneven accountability. The mandatory formation of internal complaints committees, for instance, risks becoming a formalistic exercise unless committee members are adequately trained, independent and protected from institutional pressure. Time-bound disposal targets, while necessary, may prove difficult to meet without sufficient investigative resources, clear procedural guidelines and coordination between administrative authorities and the judiciary. The recognition of digital harassment and digitally mediated domestic abuse also raises complex enforcement challenges, including evidence preservation, platform cooperation and the technical competence of investigators, areas where state capacity remains uneven. Moreover, survivor-centric safeguards, essential though, should match confidentiality protocols and protection mechanism that function in practice, particularly in small workplaces and educational institutions where power imbalances are most acute. Oversight bodies at national and local levels will require the clarity of mandate, operational autonomy and regular public reporting to avoid becoming symbolic additions. Without sustained political commitment, budgetary allocation and independent monitoring, the ordinances risk reproducing the familiar gap between the law on paper and justice in practice, undermining the very protections they seek to strengthen.
With an election being imminent, the ordinances should not be allowed to stall in limbo. Their credibility will rest on prompt promulgation, operational clarity and sustained institutional backing. The next government should treat implementation as a matter of governance, not discretion, ensuring that legal recognition of abuse translates into enforceable protection.
