The Kerala High Court has extended the stay order on the transfer of a lower court judge who granted anticipatory bail to activist Civic Chandran, accused in two sexual harassment cases. The court on September 16 stayed the transfer order of judge S Krishnakumar, whose observations about the survivors, while granting the anticipatory bail plea of Chandran, sparked controversy. Following this, Krishnakumar was transferred as the presiding officer of a Labour court in Kollam, while District and Sessions judge of Manjeri, Muralee Krishna S was posted as the new District and Sessions judge in Kozhikode. LiveLaw reported that after the HC registrar sought time to file the explanation with respect to the transfer of judge Krishnakumar, a division bench of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias CP, extended the stay order and adjourned the matter.
Judge Krishnakumar had moved the HC in August seeking to quash the transfer order, which was dismissed by Justice Anu Sivaraman, who observed 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. However, judge Krishnakumar moved the HC against the order, when the division bench stayed the order.
Civic Chandran was accused of sexually harassing two women: a Dalit poet alleged that Civic sexually harassed her 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, judge Krishnakumar, in his order dated August 2, observed that the accused was a reformist, and against the caste system and it was” highly unbelievable that he would touch the body of the victim fully knowing that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste.” He also made observations about the survivor’s attire. 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 was “impossible to believe that a man aged 74 and physically disabled would ever commit the offence.”