After Victim Shaming In Previous Ruling, Kerala Judge Grants Bail To Accused In Sexual Harassment Case

Judge S Krishnakumar was on the receiving end of flak for his controversial ruling that granted bail to the author and social activist Civic Chandran, the accused in a sexual harassment case, by shaming the victim for dressing in a "sexually provocative" manner. In the second case of sexual harassment charges filed by a Dalit writer against Civic Chandran, the same judge has approved bail on the grounds that it is highly unlikely that the accused would touch the body of the victim, fully knowing that she is a member of Scheduled Caste.

With two consecutive controversial rulings that favoured the accused in a sexual harassment case, many are questioning the legal scenario of Kerala, which has been celebrated as the state with a hundred per cent literacy rate.

Consecutively Problematic Trials

Civic Chandran, 74, was charged with two sexual harassment cases this year, and he was granted bail in both cases by Judge S Krishnakumar. On July 17, a Dalit author pressed charges against Chandran, claiming that he had tried to kiss her forcibly and outraged her modesty. Following this, on July 29, another publisher came up with accusations against Chandran, stating that he groped her and pulled her onto his lap at a poetry camp in Kozhikode. She also accused him of repeated harassment, reported Hindustan Times.

Chandran had denied the charges in both cases and his lawyers argued that the accusations were fabricated.

Both the cases were heard at the Kozhikode Sessions Court and left the author off the hook by granting him bail and shaming the victim instead. In regard to the publisher's case, the judge ruled that it would not be considered harassment if the woman was wearing "sexually provocative" clothes. The ruling triggered an extensive backlash from people across the country and demanded a fair ruling to be made in the case.

In the second such case, the same judge granted bail to Chandran again and commented on the victim's caste. He stated that the charges under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would not hold ground against the accused as it "is highly unbelievable that he will touch the body of the victim fully knowing that she is a member of Scheduled Caste." Adding on to the controversial ruling, he brought up the complainant and said that the case appeared to be an attempt to "tarnish the status of the accused".

Commenting on the ruling, legal experts said that the judge's observations were against the "delivery of natural justice", and his judgements were made in poor taste. Along with lawyers and other legal practitioners, members from the opposition party have also condemned the ruling. They questioned the archaic decision-making of the judge and said, "If judicial officials behave like this, where will the aggrieved turn to?".

Statements Made In Favour Of The Accused

The 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. While many of these charges are non-bailable offences, the judge granted bail in favour of the accused.

The judge justified his ruling by saying that, "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 the caste system,". These factors have been taken into consideration to believe that there were no sufficient or satisfactory explanations on the complainant's behalf.

The court also took into consideration the age and health of the accused and stated that it was not believable that Chandran had kissed the back of the woman, who was much taller than Chandran. Previously, in the case of the publisher as well, the judge referred to photographs of the victim and ruled that 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,".

In favour of the accused, he also stated that it was impossible to believe that an elderly and physically disabled man such as Chandran is capable of forcing the complainant on his lap and groping her.

With the observation that there must be "physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures" in order to attract section 354, the judge quashed the victims' complaints and granted anticipatory bail to the accused.

Also Read: Sexual Harassment Charges Won't Stand If Woman Is Wearing 'Sexually Provocative' Dress: Kerala Court