"What is there to show transfer was on account of order?" Kerala High Court to transferred judge who authored 'provocative dress' order

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in the plea filed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge challenging his transfer to a Labour Court in the wake of the controversy surrounding the infamous "provocative dress" order he had rendered [S Krishnakumar v State of Kerala]..When the plea came up for hearing on Tuesday, Justice Anu Sivaraman asked the petitioner-judge whether there is any material to prove that the transfer was on account of the said order."What is there to show that it is on account of that (the controversial provocative dress order) that the transfer was effected? It is a transfer simplicitor," she remarked.She also said that a Labour Court judge is well within the cadre of District Judges..The petitioner, S Krishnakumar, was serving as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kozhikode when he was transferred as Presiding Officer of Labour Court in Kollam district.Notice to that effect was published on the website of the Kerala High Court last week.As per the notice, the transfer was part of the routine transfer and posting of judicial officers and three other judges have also been transferred.However, it came at a time when the judge had come under scanner for an order passed by him in a sexual harassment case while granting bail to activist Civic Chandran.In the order, he had held that sexual harassment case would not prima facie stand if the victim was wearing a “sexually provocative dress”.The judge had stated that to attract the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal, there must be some unwelcome sexual advances but in the instant case, the photographs of the complainant showed her "exposing herself in provocative dresses".“In order to attract this Section, there must be a physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. There must be a demand or request for sexual favours. There must be sexually colored remarks. The photographs produced along with the bail application by the accused would reveal that defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one (sic). So Section 354A will not prima facie stand against the accused," the order had said. The High Court recently stayed the bail order but ordered that Chandran not be arrested until completion of the hearing before it.In his plea before the High Court, Krishnakumar contended that the transfer order was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.It was also argued that a wrong order passed by a judge while discharging his duty cannot be a ground to transfer the judge.