Supreme Court on Womens Lucrative Clothes
In its ruling granted anticipatory bail to writer and activist Civic Chandran, the Kozhikode Sessions Court noted that the IPC Section 354A alleging sexual harassment will not, on its face, be utilized against the accused because the complainant was clad in a “sexually suggestive” attire. Supreme Court on Womens Clothes.
Using photos of the complainant provided by the defendant as evidence, district sessions judge S Krishna Kumar made some comments that have sparked a debate. Women’s rights advocates and legal professionals have criticized the judge’s decision. Supreme Court on Womens Clothes. “The images submitted with the accused’s bail application show that the de facto complainant is wearing outfits with some sexually provocative ones,” the accused said. Therefore, Section 354A won’t be a strong argument against the accused, according to the order.
Supreme Court on Womens Clothes Case History
The August 12 order further stated that it is inconceivable that a 74-year-old physically challenged man could violently put the complaint in his lap and touch her breast. P Rajeev, the attorney for the complainant, stated that they would appeal the order to the supreme court. Supreme Court on Womens Clothes.
The woman complained to Koyilandy police that Chandran sexually harassed her and attempted to insult her modesty at a camp at Nandi Beach, Kozhikode, on February 8, 2020. Supreme Court on Womens Clothes. The case was registered under IPC Sections 354A (2) (punishment for sexual harassment), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), and 354 in response to the complaint.
The court further noted that the phrasing of IPC Sec. 354 makes it plain that the accused must have intended to insult a woman’s modesty. Additionally, there must be physical contact and advances involving unwanted and explicit sexual overtures in order for sexual harassment to fall under this category. It further noted that where there is a significant delay in filing the FIR, it must be fully justified according to established legal precedent.
On August 2, Chandran obtained anticipatory bail in a different case that Koyilandy police had filed against him on allegations that he had sexually assaulted a young lady author in April during a get-together at a house in Koyilandy in conjunction with her book release event.
Chandran was represented by attorneys P V Hari and Sushama M in both anticipatory bail petitions.
• Comments made by various Agencies And Commissions
The head of Kerala’s state women’s commission and other female activists harshly criticized the judge’s conclusions. Supreme Court on Womens Clothes. P Sathidevi, the chairwoman of the women’s commission, said it is really concerning that courts are using clothing, which is a very personal matter, to defend against horrible attacks against women.
“The act of giving bail by concluding that the case itself is not sustainable cannot be accepted. Instead, facts that should be taken into account while granting bail should be examined. In a sense, by making these findings, the court has already disproved the complainant’s claims made prior to the trial. In serious situations like sexual assault, that would send out a really bad message, she added.
The position that women’s provocative clothing causes sexual assaults against them is a “completely anti-women stand” and “reflects the patriarchal mindset prevailing in society,” according to Anwesha president K Ajitha. Supreme Court on Womens Clothes.
The state secretary of the All-India Lawyers Union, C. P. Pramod, sought the high court to suo motu review the sessions court ruling since it did not follow the law.
• The Twitter Take
1. Twitter User @ranjitpowar1 said
Two recent misogynistic judgments: freedom to the Bilkees Bano rapists and Kerela High Court deeming a woman guilty of sexual provocation through her style of dress. Shame! Women are not Kurkure ki ruka hi nahi jaata. Khajurao? Ajanta Ellora? ??
2. Twitter User @meghu said
Kerela High court should also circulate a dress code that women must follow which as per the “law” is not sexually provocative. Waise we all know that creeps find anything and everything provocative. Supreme Court on Womens Clothes.
3. Another User on Twitter @shraddhs said
You wear a swimming costume – they have a problem, you wear a hijab – they have an opinion. You wear westerns – it is not Indian enough. Supreme Court on Womens Clothes. You wear a saree – but can’t match it with a sleeveless blouse. The rules of patriarchy never freaking end.
4. @nameisaj8 said
Pathetic to say the least!!! And coming from the state which has the highest literacy rate is making this even more pathetic!!
5. Twitter User @Ankita_2501 said
What about women who prefer wearing a burqa and/or minor girls who are subjected to such monstrous acts?
Are their diapers and burqas provocative too?
So with all the backlash do you guys think this high court statement is anywhere near lawful or even decent?
Suggested Reads; Communal violence
Get daily updates and trendy news to enhance your knowledge with every topic covered. Including fashion, technology, current affairs, travel news, health-related news, sports news, Business, Political News, and many more.
For more information visit Live News Dekho