It has not even been a week since the Supreme Court issued a strict directive that there should not be even the slightest movement in the courtroom that damages the dignity of the survivor in sexual harassment cases. The apex court especially reminded that the trial of the survivor should be conducted in secret and the trial court has the duty to avoid any questions or proceedings which may cause humiliation to her. However, a remark made by the Kozhikode Sessions Court while considering an anticipatory bail petition related to a sexual harassment case does not send a good message to the society.

Granting anticipatory bail to the accused, the court clarified that sexual harassment will not prima facie stand as the complainant was wearing sexually provocative clothes at the time of the alleged incident. Granting or not granting anticipatory bail in any case is well within the jurisdiction of the court. However, it is never justifiable to link the dress worn by the victim at the time of the alleged offence to the crime. That is why there is a widespread protest against the remarks made by the Sessions Court, including from those working in the legal field. This order is reminiscent of a very strange and illegal judgment passed by the Bombay High Court months ago. The female judge of the Bombay High Court had acquitted the accused by stating that groping a minor without removing her clothes was not a case of sexual assault but only of molestation, since there was no ‘skin-to-skin’ contact. The Supreme Court later overturned this controversial verdict. The collegium also decided not to make this woman judge a permanent judge.

It is certain that the controversial order of the Kozhikode Sessions Court will be questioned in the higher courts. The complainant, women's organizations and lawyers have announced this. The state government itself can approach the High Court to remove the controversial remark questioning the dignity of women. It is also the duty of the government to ensure that women are not humiliated anywhere.

Courts usually do not make any compromise in enforcing laws related to women's protection. Last day, the Madras High Court ordered a husband to vacate house for treating his wife cruelly. The Kerala High Court had issued a verdict the other day granting divorce to a young woman by stating that a husband’s act of comparing her with other women would certainly amount to mental cruelty. The unfortunate remark made by the Kozhikode Sessions Court came in midst of this.