A Bombay High Court additional judge, who delivered the controversial 'no skin-to-skin contact doesn't constitute sexual harassment' judgement, was on Friday given a fresh one-year term as an additional judge, instead of two years as recommended by the Supreme Court collegium.
Justice Pushpa Ganediwala’s new tenure will start on February 13.
Her earlier tenure ended on Friday.
The SC collegium had recommended that she be given a fresh term as an additional judge for two years, but the government issued a notification on Friday stating that she be given a fresh term as an additional judge for two years.
The sources stated that the government decided to extend the period by only one year without asking the collegium to reconsider its recommendation of a two-year term.
It is to be noted that additional judges are usually appointed for two years before being promoted as permanent judges.
The decision has come after a controversial verdict given by Justice Ganediwala in a sexual assault case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The Bombay High Court acquitted an appellant under the POCSO Act ruling that groping a minor's breast without "skin to skin contact" does not constitute "sexual assault" under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Justice Pushpa Ganediwala of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court, in a judgement passed on January 19, the detailed copy of which was made available now, held that there must be "skin to skin contact with sexual intent" for an act to be considered sexual assault.
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court passed the order while hearing a petition by Satish, who was convicted by a local court under Sections 354, 363 (kidnapping) and 342 (wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
"The appellant/accused is convicted for the offence of 'sexual assault'. As per the definition of 'sexual assault', a 'physical contact with sexual intent without penetration' is an essential ingredient of the offence," read the court order dated January 19.
However, the Supreme Court stayed the Bombay High Court order, citing that the order would set a 'dangerous precedent'.
