S. Krishnakumar, the former Kozhikode Principal District and Sessions judge, has sued the Kerala High Court against what he termed his illegal transfer from the post apparently over a controversial remark about the dressing of a sexual assault survivor in a judicial order.
The reference about the dressing of the survivor in a sexual assault case booked against writer Civic Chandran had stirred a controversy. The officer was subsequently transferred and posted as the presiding officer of the labour court in Kollam. However, he has not assumed the new post.
Former judge’s petition
In his petition, Mr. Krishnakumar has listed the Kerala High Court, to be represented by the Registrar General, as a respondent in the case.
Terming his transfer as illegal, Mr. Krishnakumar contended that he was entitled to continue in the post till his retirement on May 31 next year.
A judicial officer can be transferred before completing the three-year term in a post only if it is necessary in the interest of administration or under special circumstances. A wrong order passed while discharging judicial duty cannot be a ground for transfer, he claims in the plea.
As the post of presiding officer of a labour court is a deputation post, the prior consent of the official needs to be obtained. However, no consent has been obtained and, hence, the transfer is illegal, says Mr. Krishnakumar in his petition, which may come up before the court this week.
Impeding freedom of judiciary
The judge contends that no officer can be transferred by an administrative order for a judicial order passed as part of his official duty. The action taken on the administrative side against a judicial officer for a decision taken on the judicial side will impede the freedom of the judiciary and demoralise officers. The fear of punitive action for a decision taken while discharging the official responsibilities will deter officials from taking free and fair decisions in cases that come up before them, he claims.
The State government and the survivor in the case had moved the High Court against the order and for cancelling the anticipatory bail.
In his petition, the judge says he had an unblemished service of 27 years and the transfer that came at the fag end of his carrier “will tell upon his dedication and sacrifice made by him while discharging duty as a judicial officer”.
