Judge behind controversial POSCO verdict not made permanent

Judge behind controversial POSCO verdict not made permanent

The Law Ministry has accepted the Surpeme Court Collegium's recommendation of not making Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala of the Bombay High Court a permanent Judge. She will continue as Additional judge of the High Court for one more year.

The notification issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice read, "In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 224 of the Constitution, the President of India is pleased to appoint Smt. Pushpa Virendra Ganediwala, to be an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court for a period of one year with effect from 13th February, 2021."

She had delivered controversial judgments on Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, following which the Supreme Court Collegium, which had earlier recommended Justice Ganediwala to be made permanent, withdrew its recommendation after the contentious judgments authored by the judge came under scrutiny and attracted nation-wide criticism.

In one of the recent judgments delivered on January 19 by her, she ruled that the act of pressing the breast of a child aged 12 years without removing her top will not fall within the definition of 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of POCSO.

In another judgment, Justice Ganediwala held that the act of holding a minor girl's hands and opening the zip of pants will not come under the definition of "sexual assault" under POSCO. But, went on to hold that such acts would amount to "sexual harassment" under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The most controversial judgment that attracted the most criticism was the judgment in which she laid down that mere groping over the clothes without actual 'skin to skin contact' will not amount to sexual assault under the POCSO Act in which she acquitted the man accused of touching a minor girls breasts without removing her clothes under POCSO Act, and convicted him under a lesser offence of Section 354 of the IPC.

After being criticised for passing such controversial judgments, the Supreme Court stayed the judgment on a mention being made by the Attorney General for India as it would set a dangerous precedent.