New Delhi: The Kerala high court on Thursday, September 1, dismissed the plea of Kozhikode sessions court judge S. Krishnakumar challenging his transfer order to the post of the presiding officer, labour court, Kollam, Livelaw.in reported.The contention of the petitioner was that his transfer came in response to his controversial ruling in a sexual harassment case where he had said the case was not maintainable because the victim in question was wearing a “sexually provocative dress“.After the backlash, the Kerala government intervened and moved the high court to get a stay order on the sessions court order. Subsequently, Krishnakumar was also transferred, which he said was “illegal”, as a “wrong order” while discharging judicial duty cannot be the grounds for transfer.To this, Justice Anu Sivaraman said, “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.”Also read: ‘Complainant’s Dress Was Sexually Provocative’: Kerala Court While Granting Bail to Civic ChandranJustice Sivaraman added that Krishnakumar, who is a member of the higher judicial service, cannot carry any prejudice against his posting as the presiding officer of a labour court, which he said was very much formed part of the cadre of a district judge.Krishnakumar’s counsel, Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, had told the court earlier that a judicial officer cannot be transferred from a post before the mandated three-year term, except in cases where it was done for administrative reasons or under special circumstances. He had asserted that a “wrong order” while disposing of cases cannot be a reason for such transfer.The petitioner had further gone to add that the post of the presiding officer at a labour court was a deputation, which generally required the consent of the official concerned (in this case, the petitioner). However, he had said that his consent was not sought, making his transfer “illegal”.To this, Justice Sivaraman said that the transfer order was an “order simpliciter”, adding that there was nothing in the transfer order to suggest that it was done in response to an “erroneous order” passed by the petitioner. The high court judge also refuted the contention of the petitioner that the presiding officer at a labour court was a deputation, and said it was well within the cadre of a principal district judge.The controversial order by Judge Krishnakumar was passed on August 12, in which author and activist Civic Chandran was the accused. “The photographs produced along with the bail application by the accused would reveal that the defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one. So Section 354A [punishment for sexual harassment] will not prima facie stand against the accused,” Judge Krishnakumar had ruled.Subsequently, the Kerala government on August 19 moved the high court seeking to set aside the sessions court controversial order granting bail to Chandran, contending that the judgement of the lower court suffered from “illegality, lack of sensitivity, sobriety and perversity” warranting its intervention.Justice Kauser Edappagath of the high court had found fault with the session court order and set it aside. The high court had also sought records of the case from the sessions court, and said it will hear the matter after vacation. However, the high court, considering the age of the accused, who is in his 70s, instructed police not to arrest him until the case is disposed of.
