Unlikely he’ll touch an SC woman: Kerala judge in harassment case

In a case against writer Civic Chandran, was accused by a Dalit author, the judge, S Krishnakumar, granted bail but commented on the caste aspect of the case.

A day after stoking a row by linking a sexual harassment charge to a woman’s allegedly provocative clothes, a Kerala lower court judge triggered a second controversy on Thursday after his observations about another sexual harassment case against the same man became public, this time over the caste of the victim.

Representative Image

The judge, S Krishnakumar, was adjudicating two cases of sexual harassment against writer Civic Chandran, 74, in the Kozhikode sessions court. In the first case, he granted him bail on August 12 but controversially said that the offence of sexual harassment wasn’t made out if the woman was wearing “sexually provocative” clothes. That order was made public on Wednesday.

In the second case, where Chandran was accused by a Dalit author, the judge also granted him bail on August 2 but commented on the caste aspect of the case. He said that charges under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act wouldn’t prima facie stand against Chandran because it “is highly unbelievable that he will touch the body of the victim fully knowing that she is a member of Scheduled Caste.”

Two sexual harassment cases were filed against Chandran this year and he was granted bail in both. A Dalit author on July 17 complained to the police that Chandran tried to kiss her forcibly and outraged her modesty on April 17. Then, on July 29, a female publisher accused Chandran of groping her and pulling her to his lap at a poetry camp in Kozhikode. She also accused him of regularly calling and harassing her.

In the July 17 case involving the Dalit woman, the judge pulled up the complainant and said the case appeared to be an attempt to “tarnish the status of the accused”.

“He is fighting against the caste system and is involved in several agitations. The copy of the SSLC book shows that he refused to mention his caste. The accused is a reformist and is engaged in fighting against caste system,” the judge further wrote in his order, saying that sections of the SC/ST Act will not prima facie stand against the accused. The special law is invoked when a member of these marginalised groups is attacked or harmed.

Police had booked Chandran under sections 354, 354 (A) (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 3 (2) of the SC/ST Act. Though he was charged under non-bailable provisions of the Act, he was granted bail. The judge justified his stance by pointing out that, “in educational certificates of the accused, he mentioned that he has no caste or religion”.

The court also said there was no satisfactory explanation on the part of the complainant though she was educated and well aware of laws. While considering the age and health conditions of the accused, it couldn’t be believed that Chandran kissed the back of the woman, who was taller than the accused, the judge said in his order.

The judge took charge of the sessions court in June this year.

The judge is already battling a barrage of criticism from activists and legal experts for his comments in the July 29 case, where he granted bail to Chandran on August 12. In that case, referring to photographs of the complainant produced by Chandran’s counsel along with his bail plea, the court said the images “reveal that de facto complainant is herself exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one”. “So section 354 (A) will not stand against the accused,” justice Krishnakumar added.

​​“Even admitting that there was a physical contact, it is impossible to believe that a man having aged 74 and physically disabled can forcefully put de facto complainant in his lap and sexually press her private part. So, it is a fit case wherein the accused can be granted bail,” he said.

The court also observed that “in order to attract section 354, there must be a physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures”.

“There must be a demand or request for sexual favours. There must be sexually coloured remarks,” it said.

Chandran has denied the charges in both cases and his lawyers have called the accusations fabricated.

Legal experts said the judge’s observations were against the “delivery of natural justice” and his sweeping comments weakened the cases.

“His conclusions are really shocking. He brought enough damage to the judiciary,” said senior lawyer A Jayashankar. Opposition leader V D Satheesan also decried the observations of the judge. “We have no idea in which age he is living. If judicial officials behave like this, where will the aggrieved turn to?” he asked.

“The observations are insensitive,” said writer C S Chandrika.