Pushpa Ganediwala: This name might be familiar to you. The former High Court judge was in the news in the national media for her many controversial decisions. Now she is in the news once again. This time the reason is different.

If there is skin to skin contact with the intention of having sex, it will be considered sexual assault... Holding the hand of a minor girl and opening the zip of a boy's trousers is not sexual assault under the POCSO Act... Former High Court judge Pushpa Ganedivala, who came into the news with these decisions, is once again in the headlines. Yes, the Bombay High Court said on Thursday that former High Court judge Pushpa Ganedivala is entitled to get pension equal to that of a High Court judge. 

Pushpa Ganediwala faced criticism for several controversial decisions in Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) cases. Ganediwala was demoted as District Sessions Judge on February 12, 2022, upon the expiry of her term as Additional Judge. A major controversy arose over her interpretation of 'sexual assault' under the POCSO Act.

Ganediwala had come under fire for several of her judgements, which said that under the POCSO Act, skin-to-skin contact with the intent to have sex would be considered sexual assault and holding the hand of a minor girl and opening the zip of a boy's trousers was not sexual assault under the Act.

In July 2023, Ganediwala filed a petition before the High Court, challenging a notice dated November 2, 2022 issued by the Registrar of the High Court (Original Side), declaring that she was not eligible/entitled to pension and other benefits as a judge of the High Court. 

Ganediwala had requested to be given pension as an additional judge of the High Court, arguing that this should be done irrespective of the fact whether she has retired voluntarily or retired after attaining a certain age. A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre on Thursday quashed the November 2022 communication and said that Ganediwala is entitled to get pension equal to that of an additional judge of the High Court from February 2022. 

The court ordered, 'We direct the registry to fix his pension with six per cent interest from February 2022 within two months from today.' While filing his petition in July 2023, Ganediwala had said, 'I am not getting any pension. The entire approach of the respondents in refusing to grant pension is arbitrary.' He was appointed as an additional judge of the Bombay High Court in 2019. Ganediwala said in his petition that in January 2021, the apex court had approved his application for appointment as a permanent judge. Later the recommendation was withdrawn. 

The petition claimed that the petitioner (Ganediwala) worked as an additional judge in the High Court for about three years. She had applied for pension in the High Court Registry. However, a decision was taken that since Ganediwala had not retired as a judge in the High Court, she was not entitled to pension of the same rank. (Language)