How could any department function without recruitment rules and policy in place?
In May 2021, the Sindh High Court confronted a quiet institutional failure: the machinery meant to protect women existed in name but not in substance. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar's bench issued binding directives ordering the province to staff its women police stations properly, secure its shelter homes with surveillance, and draft the recruitment rules without which no department can truly function. The ruling was less a new beginning than a demand that long-promised protections finally become real.
- Women police stations existed across Sindh's districts but operated as hollow structures — unrecognized, unstaffed, and without formal legal standing.
- A criminal case in Sukkur exposed a devastating breach of trust: shelter home officials, entrusted with protecting vulnerable women, had instead committed rape against inmates.
- The court ordered CCTV cameras installed inside and outside all shelter homes, and set a three-month deadline for fully staffed, formally recognized women police stations in every district.
- Years after the 2013 Domestic Violence Act, the women development department had still not written the recruitment rules needed to legally fill its own positions — a paralysis the court refused to excuse.
- Girls escaping forced marriages and seeking education remain blocked by family custom, with the court now demanding documented proof that the state is actively restoring their access to schooling.
In May 2021, a Sindh High Court bench led by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar issued a series of directives that exposed how thoroughly the province's protective infrastructure for women had been allowed to remain incomplete. The immediate trigger was a series of hearings on the condition of women shelter homes, but what emerged was a portrait of systemic neglect dressed up as progress.
The home secretary was forced to acknowledge an uncomfortable truth: women police stations already existed in various districts, but they had never been formally staffed or officially recognized. They existed on the ground but not on paper. The court ordered this corrected within three months, requiring all positions to be filled through proper recruitment procedures and all proposals submitted to the finance department within a month.
The shelter home crisis sharpened the court's tone considerably. A judicial inquiry in Sukkur had found that a senior shelter clerk and others had committed rape against the very inmates they were meant to protect. The court described this as 'misfeasance of officials' and responded by mandating CCTV cameras both inside and outside all shelter homes and safe houses — a measure that should never have required a court order to implement.
The bench also confronted the women development department over its failure to draft recruitment rules under the Domestic Violence Act of 2013 — legislation that had been on the books for eight years. Without those rules, positions could not be legally filled, leaving the department perpetually unable to meet its own mandate. The court gave the secretary one month to produce a draft and submit it for approval.
A final directive required the department to report on its efforts to establish schools and educational centers for girls blocked from continuing their studies by forced marriage or family custom. Across every front, the court's message was the same: the deadlines are real, the accountability is judicial, and the time for incomplete gestures has passed.
A single bench of the Sindh High Court, led by Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, issued a directive in May 2021 that would reshape how the province responds to crimes against women. The court ordered the provincial home department to establish at least one women police station in every district across Sindh and to fill all positions within three months through formal recruitment procedures.
The ruling emerged during hearings on the state of women shelter homes in the province. When the justice inquired whether the home department had issued formal notifications for these stations, the home secretary acknowledged an awkward reality: women police stations already existed in various districts, but they operated without proper staffing structures or official recognition. The department had created them in practice but never formalized them on paper. The secretary promised to submit all necessary staffing proposals to the finance department within a month, seeking approval for the positions that would make these stations functional and legitimate.
The court's reasoning cut to the heart of why this infrastructure matters. Justice Panhwar observed that women police stations exist to offer something concrete to a significant portion of the population: the confidence that they can report crimes to officers who understand their circumstances and will treat their cases with appropriate seriousness. The bench framed this not as a gesture of goodwill but as a pathway to justice itself—victims who feel safe reporting are victims who have a chance at accountability.
The directive extended beyond staffing. The court also mandated that the Sindh police and women development department install closed-circuit television cameras both outside and inside women shelter homes and safe houses. This order came in response to a troubling disclosure: police in Sukkur had registered a criminal case against a senior shelter home clerk and others after a judicial inquiry found they had committed rape against inmates. The court's language was sharp. It called this conduct "misfeasance of officials"—a formal term for abuse of power, but one that barely contained the gravity of what had occurred. Officials entrusted with the safety of vulnerable women had instead victimized them.
The bench also pressed the women development department on a separate but related failure. The department had not yet prepared recruitment rules, despite the existence of the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act of 2013. The secretary requested a month to draft these rules and submit them to the services department. Justice Panhwar rejected this passivity. How, the court asked, could any department function effectively without recruitment rules and policy in place? Without them, required positions could not be filled legally, leaving the department perpetually understaffed and unable to serve its mandate.
A final order directed the women development department to report back on its progress establishing schools and educational centers for girls who had been victims of forced marriage or who wished to continue their studies but whose families, citing custom, had forbidden it. The court wanted documentation of what was being done to restore educational access to these young women.
The ruling represented a court stepping in to enforce what the executive branch had left incomplete. Women police stations existed but were shadows of what they should be. Shelter homes operated without basic security measures. Recruitment rules sat unwritten. The bench's orders were not suggestions—they were judicial commands, backed by the court's authority, setting deadlines and demanding accountability. What remained to be seen was whether the home department and women development department would move with the urgency the court had signaled.
Notable Quotes
The concept of women police stations is to provide a sense of security and safety to a majority of the population who will feel safe reporting grievances to women police officers and receive justice.— Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Sindh High Court
The incident regarding rape committed by officials showed misfeasance of officials.— Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Sindh High Court
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did the court need to order something that the police department seemed to already be doing—establishing women police stations?
Because doing something and doing it properly are different things. These stations existed in practice but had no formal notification, no official staffing structure, no legal foundation. They were ad hoc. The court was saying: make it real, make it permanent, make it accountable.
And the rape case in Sukkur—was that the reason the court suddenly cared about this?
It was the catalyst that exposed the danger of half-measures. If you're going to create spaces where vulnerable women are supposed to be safe, and then officials abuse that trust, the entire system fails. The court saw that and said: this is what happens when you don't do things properly.
The recruitment rules issue seems almost bureaucratic compared to the shelter home abuse.
But it's not separate. Without recruitment rules, you can't hire qualified people. You can't enforce standards. You can't hold anyone accountable. The court understood that the abuse was possible partly because the system lacked the basic structure to prevent it.
So the three-month deadline—is that realistic?
That's the question everyone will be asking. The court set it because the need is urgent. Whether the departments can actually deliver is another matter. But the court made clear it expects compliance, not excuses.
What about the girls denied education because of forced marriage?
That's the court saying the problem extends beyond immediate safety. It's about restoring futures to young women whose families have already taken so much from them. The court wanted to know what the government was actually doing about it.