The Supreme Court collegium has once again refused to elevate the Bombay HC judge Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala who had drawn flak for her controversial “skin-to-skin” order on sexual assault at the beginning of the year, as a permanent judge or provide her with an extension as an additional judge. Justice Pushpa Ganediwala is currently a Judge in the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court.
Despite the fact that Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala’s tenure is set to expire in February 2022, the SC Collegium has rejected her elevation as a High Court judge for the second time in a row. As she has not been elevated and her term as High Court judge has not been extended, Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala will revert back as a District Judge after her term as an ad hoc High Court judge ends in February.
Prior to this, the Collegium headed by then CJI S A Bobde was compelled to withdraw its January 20, 2020 recommendation to the Union government to appoint her as a permanent judge of Bombay HC, after the controversy over her back-to-back insensitive judgements in the POCSO case came to light the same month.
The Collegium had then recommended extending her ad hoc judgeship only for a year considering the insensitivity she had displayed towards children facing sexual abuse.
The Supreme Court Collegium approved the appointment of 3 Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court as Permanent Judges, Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar, Amit Bhalchandra Borkar and Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni.
Bombay HC judge not made permanent over her insensitive ‘skin to skin contact’ verdict
It may be recalled that on January 24, the Bombay High Court bench of Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala had, in a shocking verdict, ruled that groping without skin-to-skin contact is not sexual assault. She had observed that the act involving a minor would not amount to sexual assault if the accused did not remove the top of the minor or slide his hands under her garment.
“The act of pressing the breast of a child aged 12 years, in the absence of any specific detail as to whether the top was removed or whether he inserted his hand inside her top and pressed her breast, would not fall under the definition of ‘sexual assault’,” Justice Ganediwala had observed.
The case pertained to a matter from 2016 where the appellant in the case was accused of taking the minor victim, aged around 12 years, to his house under the pretext of giving her guava and then proceeded to press her breast and attempted to remove her salwar. Her mother, fortunately, reached the spot right then and rescued her daughter.
The victim confirmed the series of events. In light of the facts on hand, the Bombay High Court had held that “the appellant is acquitted under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and convicted under minor offence u/s 354 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default of fine to suffer R.I. for one month. The sentence for the offence punishable under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. six months and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month, is maintained.”
Later, in another case, Justice Ganediwala had controversially ruled that “the acts of ‘holding the hands of the prosecutrix’ (female victim), or opened zip of the pant’…does not fit in the definition of sexual assault,'” and overturned a man’s conviction under POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses). A five-year-old girl was the assault victim in this case.
