Judge behind ‘provocative dresses’ order moves Kerala high court over transfer

Judge Krishnakumar’s observations regarding survivors in his two orders on the anticipatory bail pleas moved by accused ‘Civic’ Chandran, who is also a writer and social activist, in two sexual harassment cases had stirred up a controversy

A judge, who has made controversial observations in his orders while granting bail to an accused in two sexual harassment cases, has moved the Kerala high court seeking to quash the order issued by it transferring him as presiding officer of a labour court in Kollam.

In his plea to the Kerala high court, judge S Krishnakumar said he was discharging his duty as a Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, from June 6, 2022 and his transfer order issued by the registrar of the high court was against the transfer norms. (HT Archives)

Judge S Krishnakumar was transferred from the post of sessions judge to the presiding officer of the Kollam labour court last Tuesday after the controversial “sexually provocative dress” remark.

In his plea filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Judge Krishnakumar, 59, said he was discharging his duty as a Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, from June 6, 2022 and his transfer order issued by the Registrar of the high court was against the transfer norms.

Krishnakumar’s observations regarding survivors in his two orders on the anticipatory bail pleas moved by accused ‘Civic’ Chandran, who is also a writer and social activist, in two sexual harassment cases had stirred up a controversy.

While granting bail to Chandran in the case, Krishnakumar, in his order dated August 2, observed that the accused is a reformist, and against the caste system and it is highly unbelievable that he would touch the body of the victim fully knowing that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste (SC).

The judge had also made controversial observations about the dressing of the survivor while granting bail to Chandran in the bail application moved by the latter in another case of sexual harassment against him.

In its August 12 order, the court had observed that the photograph of the complainant, produced by the accused along with the bail application, would explain that she herself dressed in a sexually provocative manner and it is impossible to believe that a man aged 74 and physically disabled would ever do the offence.

Krishnakumar said transferring him was illegal as it was a deputation post and his consent, which was required for transferring him to that post, was not obtained before taking that decision