Remarks about Civic Chandran’s ‘provocative clothing’ have been removed by the Kerala High Court.

On Thursday, the Kerala High Court struck down the Kozhikode Sessions Court’s remark about Civic Chandran’s ‘sexually provocative outfit’ while ruling on two petitions opposing the granting of anticipatory bail to the novelist and social activist in a case involving sexual harassment.

 

Live law states that even though the justification provided by the court below for granting anticipatory bail cannot be supported, the order granting anticipatory bail cannot be reversed. Justice Kauser Edappagath made this observation while deciding on the two arguments raised by the State and the de facto complainant against the anticipatory bail order.

 

The Kozhikode Sessions Court order, which was issued on August 12, had certain observations that sparked a great deal of indignation. The court had ruled that the woman’s wearing of ‘sexually suggestive clothing’ did not constitute an offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code.

 

The State had contested the findings and reasoning made by the Sessions Court in the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Sections 482, read with 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as being ‘illegal, lacking in sensitivity, sobriety, and perversity.’

 

According to Live Law, Justice Edappagath made the observation when approving the ruling that the victim’s attire could not be utilised as a defence to remove an accused from the allegation of upsetting a woman’s modesty.

 

‘The right to wear any dress is a natural extension of the personal freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and a part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Even though a lady is dressed provocatively, a male still has no right to offend her modesty. So, the High Court ruled, ‘the aforementioned conclusion of the court below in the assailed decree is hereby set aside.’

 

The petitioner has established a case for anticipatory bail, the judge observed. Earlier, the Director General of Prosecutions said in court that the case’s investigation was virtually complete.

 

The court noted that a prison interrogation will not be required after taking into account the case’s facts, circumstances, and the accused’s age.

 

The criminal miscellaneous cases were resolved by the court, and the award of anticipatory bail to the accused was upheld.