New Delhi: The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by former Additional District and Sessions Judge S Krishna Kumar, who made the controversial “provocative dresses” remark while granting bail to an accused in two sexual harassment cases, challenging his transfer order to Labour Court, according to a news agency. He was transferred from the post of Sessions Judge to the presiding officer of Kollam labour court on last Tuesday after the remark.
He has petitioned the High Court against the transfer order issued by the High Court’s administrative branch. The petition was rejected today by the Single Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman.
The Kozhikode Sessions Court judgement, issued on August 12, by S Krishnakumar, sparked controversy since it said that sexual harassment accusations would not be accepted if the lady was dressed in a “sexually suggestive clothing.” This was noted by the court when it granted anticipatory bail to writer and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case.
The Kerala High Court stated in its ruling today, “I fail to see what legal right of the petitioner is infringed by the transfer order and I am of the opinion that the grounds raised in the writ petition do not justify the grant of any plea sought for.”
The ruling also mentioned, “the said transfer order was an order simpliciter, and there wasn’t anything in the order to show that the transfer was made for passing an erroneous order. The transfer to the post of Presiding Officer of a Labour Court is not a deputation as it is well within the cadre of the Principle District Judge.”
Civic Chandran, the author accused of sexual harassment by women, was granted anticipatory release on August 2 by a judge who stated that it was “very impossible that he will touch the victim’s body fully knowing that she is a member of Scheduled Caste.”
The court added in its judgement granting bail to the 74-year-old novelist, “In order to attract this Section, there must be physical contact and approaches including uninvited and explicit sexual propositions.” A desire or request for sexual favours must exist. There must be sexually charged comments. The images submitted with the accused’s bail application would show that the complainant herself is wearing outfits that are sexually suggestive (sic).”
The Kerala government had petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the Sessions Court’s bail ruling, claiming that it was “unjust” and might cause stress to the complainant. The appeal was upheld, and the High Court halted Chandran’s anticipatory bail.