Opinion Remarks by a sessions judge in Kerala in a sexual harassment case are an embarrassment for his institution

Justice, it is said, is blind. Not, it would seem, for S Krishna Kumar, a sessions judge in Kerala, for whom the dress worn by the complainant provided sufficient legal ground to make comments offensive and disrespectful to women in a sexual harassment case. He made these observations while granting bail to social activist and Malayalam writer Civic Chandran in two separate cases, revealing, in the process, a crude misogyny that is shocking in the institution of the judiciary, in a state that takes great pride in giving women their rightful place across sectors, at home and in the workplace.

The airing of a strikingly regressive mindset seemed to come together with an undue haste that ignored the Supreme Court’s direction reiterated in several judgements – cautioning lower court judges against making unwarranted observations on the merits of a case while hearing bail pleas. In the first bail order on August 2, Judge Kumar said that provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 would not prima facie stand against the accused because it is “highly unbelievable that he will touch the body of the victim fully knowing that she is a member of Scheduled Caste”. In the second bail order on August 12, he described the photographs of the complainant presented by the defence counsel as “sexually provocative” and went on to observe that “Section 354 will not prima facie stand against the accused”. He also drew a comparison between the physical attributes of the complainant and the accused to make the bizarre claim that the assault alleged by the former could not have taken place in the first case.

Advertisement

The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 354 of the IPC, which pertains to sexual harassment crimes, were legislated after extended campaigns and intense debate. Judge Kumar’s comments show that there are still corners and pockets that are not yet touched, or changed, by the effort to make the law more sensitive and justice more responsive to the concerns and dignity of women. That these remarks have come from a judicial officer in a state that has done well on most gender indices, especially on health and education, is also disturbing. The much-discussed Kerala Model of development owes a lot to the empowerment of its women —socially, politically and economically – evident in movements in the 19th century, to claim agency over their bodies, and by the setting up of producer and services networks such as the Kudumbasree in recent times. These gains seem to have fallen woefully short in changing mindsets.