The Hema Committee, headed by former Kerala High Court judge K. Hema, was constituted in the wake of the sexual assault of an actor in 2017.
| Photo Credit: H. VIBHU
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 13, 2024) dismissed a writ petition challenging the State Information Commission’s (SIC) order directing the Kerala government to make public the Justice K. Hema Committee report on women’s working conditions in the Malayalam film industry with limited redactions.
The committee, headed by former Kerala High Court judge K. Hema, was constituted in the wake of the sexual assault of an actor in 2017. The committee submitted its report to the Kerala government on December 31, 2019. However, it has not been made public on the grounds that it contains sensitive information. The SIC’s order came on applications filed under the RTI Act.
Justice V.G. Arun, while dismissing the writ petition filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil challenging the State SIC’s order, extended by one week the time for releasing the report.
According to the petitioner, making public the reports would violate the fundamental rights and privacy rights besides breaching the confidentiality given to the witnesses who deposed before the committee and would go against public policy. The disclosure of the report would lead to identification of witnesses or complainants, potentially exposing them to retaliation or further harassment.
The release of the report even with the redactions would run a significant risks of identifying individuals who provided testimonies under assurances of confidentiality. The confidential nature of the report was crucial in maintaining the integrity of the investigation and safeguarding participants, thereby fostering trust in government inquiries and ensuring honest reporting of workplace issues, the petitioner said.
Moreover, the unilateral order to disclose the report without prior consultation had violated principles of natural justice, denying affected parties, including the stakeholders, in the film industry the opportunity to respond to potential allegations or criticisms that could unjustly harm their reputations and livelihoods, the petitioner said.
The SIC submitted that the petitioner was trying to prevent the disclosure of the report which had been kept in cold storage for the last four and a half years. He argued that the public had every right to know the contents of the report since it would help improve the conditions of the women working in the film industry. Besides, there is a larger public interest as the committee which had come up with various suggestions to improve the lot of women in the film industry.
The SIC’s order had completely taken care of Section 11 of the RTI Act and ordered removal of all personal information, and names, and excluded all indications about identifying a name from the report, the SIC contended.
The State Women’s Commission and Women in Cinema Collective got impleaded in the case and opposed the plea of the petitioner.
