On Thursday, the Kerala High Court while disposing of two petitions, granted anticipatory bail to Civic Chandran, the author and social activist, in the Sexual Harassment Case.

The court removed the controversial remarks "Provocative Dress" made by the Session Judge in the Sexual Harassment Case. It ruled that Section 354A of the IPC will not be applied if the victim was dressed in "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." 

While dismissing the two petitions filed by the state and the de facto complainant against the anticipatory bail order, Justice Kauser Edappagath stated that even though the reason given by the Court below for granting anticipatory bail cannot be justified, the order granting anticipatory bail cannot be set aside. The appeal filed by Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan on behalf of the State, contended that the Session Court order granting bail is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, resulting in an infringement of the survivor's personal liberty and a violation of the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The court was hearing a petition filed by the Kerala government to setaside the order granting bail to Chandran, who has been charged under sections 354 A(2), 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

The High Court held that “Prima facie it appears that there was an improper exercise of jurisdiction by the Session Judge while granting bail to the accused. Irrelevant materials of substantial nature are seen relied on to grant bail. The finding of the impugned order that Section 354-A will not be prima facie attracted if the victim was wearing sexually provocative dress cannot be justified.”

The Sessions Court found that the petitioner had established a case for anticipatory bail. Consequently, taking the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the age of Civic Chandran, the Court determined that custodial interrogation would not be necessary.

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Civic Chandran