A division bench of the Kerala High Court on Friday, 16 September, stayed the transfer order of a lower court judge who granted anticipatory bail to activist Civic Chandran, accused in two sexual harassment cases.
Judge S Krishnakumar had stirred a row with his controversial observations while hearing the anticipatory bail plea of Civic Chandran, and days later, Krishnakumar was transferred to be the presiding officer of a Labour Court in Kollam.
Muralee Krishna S, District and Sessions Judge of Manjeri, was made the new District and Sessions Judge in Kozhikode.
Krishnakumar had moved the high court in August seeking to quash the transfer order. However, the plea was dismissed.
Justice Anu Sivaraman said that there was no reason to interfere with the transfer order as the post that he had been transferred to was equivalent to that of a District Court Judge.
“He has not lost any legal rights due to the transfer and he now has a responsibility to work at the place of assignment,” the court said and added that the transfer was part of normal procedure.
It was against this judgment that Krishnakumar moved the high court again, and on Friday, the Division Bench of Justice AK Jayashankaran Nambiar and Justice CP Mohammed Nias stayed the transfer order.
Why Was Krishnakumar Being Transferred?
Civic Chandran was accused of sexually harassing two women. A Dalit poet alleged that Civic sexually harassed him during a book exhibition in Kochi this year, and another young writer alleged that she was sexually harassed by him in 2020. Krishnakumar had granted bail to Civic in both these cases.
While granting bail to Chandran, Krishnakumar, in his order dated 2 August, 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.”
He also made controversial observations about the dressing of the survivor. In its 12 August 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 commit the offence.”
(Published in an arrangement with The News Minute.)
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)