The Kerala High Court on Wednesday set aside the transfer of Kozhikode Principle District and Sessions Judge S Krishnakumar who had passed the controversial "provocative dress order" [S Krishnakumar v State of Kerala]..A division bench of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias CP delivered the verdict on an appeal moved by the judge against a single-judge's order that had upheld his transfer..Krishnakumar was serving as Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kozhikode when he was transferred as Presiding Officer of Labour Court in Kollam district.A notice to that effect was published on the website of the Kerala High Court on August 23.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 was under scanner for an order passed by him in a sexual harassment case while granting bail to activist Civic Chandran.In the order, the judge had held that sexual harassment case would not prima facie stand if the victim was wearing a “sexually provocative dress”.“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 had subsequently expunged those remarks after the State challenged the same before the High Court.A decision was also taken by the High Court on the administrative side to transfer the judge..The judge then approached the High Court by way of the present appeal petition challenging the transfer.In his plea before the High Court, Krishnakumar had 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..The Registrar General of the High Court opposed the appeal by contending that the transfer was not a punishment transfer, but one effected under the exigencies of service and in the general interest of administration of justice.The Registrar had, however, stated on affidavit that apart from the unwarranted observations regarding "provocative" clothing, the judge had passed many orders which had come under scanner including one instance in which he disposed of a Sessions Case after sending WhatsApp message to the accused regarding the posting of the case..Judge Krishnakumar was represented by Senior Advocate VV Sidharthan and advocates Dinesh Mathew J Muricken, Vinod S Pillai, Nayana Varghese, and Ahammad Sachin K.Advocate Elviin Peter PJ represented the High Court and Government Pleader Bijoy Chandran appeared for the State.