Bombay HC Judge Refused Elevation After Controversial ‘Skin-to-Skin’ Verdict Resigns

Had she not resigned, Justice Pushpa Ganediwala would have been sent back to the district judiciary after the Supreme Court refused her elevation.

New Delhi: The Bombay high court additional judge who had delivered two controversial judgments in POCSO Act cases resigned on February 10, months after the Supreme Court refused to elevate her.

Last year, the Supreme Court collegium withdrew its recommendation to confirm Justice Pushpa Ganediwala’s permanent status in the state’s top court.

As The Wire has reported, Justice Ganediwala shot to controversy when in a January 19, 2021, order, she ruled that groping a minor without “skin-to-skin contact” could not be termed as sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

On January 27, the Supreme Court had stayed the order acquitting the accused after Attorney General for India K.K. Venugopal said the order would set a dangerous precedent.

A day later, on January 28, 2021, Justice Ganediwala ruled that holding a five-year-old minor child’s hands and the act of a 50-year-old man unzipping his pants in front of her will not come under the ambit of ‘sexual assault’ as defined by the POCSO Act.

This decision too was overturned by the Supreme Court.

In two other judgments that very month, Justice Ganediwala acquitted two rape-accused men after noting that the testimonies of the victims did not inspire confidence to fix criminal liability on the accused.

The Collegium, which is the primary body to appoint judges at higher courts of India, rarely withdraws its recommendations to the Union government.

Indian Express has reported that its decision to demote the judge meant that once her tenure as additional judge ended on February 12, Justice Ganediwala would have been sent back to the district judiciary.

“Additional judges to high courts are appointed either from the Bar directly or state judiciary under Article 224 (1) of the Constitution for a period not exceeding two years,” the report notes.

The post is intended to tackle courts’ burdens but has now grown into a de facto probationary period for permanent judges.