Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The arrest of Malayalam writer-filmmaker Ranjith Balakrishnan on March 31 over an alleged attempt to sexually assault a young actor has triggered more than a criminal investigation. It has reopened a familiar and uncomfortable question for the Malayalam film industry: are the mechanisms meant to ensure workplace safety for women actually working?
Beyond the allegation against Ranjith, the case has brought scrutiny to what followed, particularly the role, or apparent absence, of the Internal Committee (IC) on the film set, and the controversy surrounding one of its members.
The case stems from a complaint filed by a young actor, who alleged that Ranjith entered her caravan without permission during a film shoot in Fort Kochi in January and attempted to sexually assault her. According to the police, the survivor approached authorities weeks later, after undergoing counselling and psychiatric care due to trauma. Her statement was recorded at a women’s police station, following which a preliminary inquiry was conducted.
Ranjith was taken into custody from Idukki district on March 31 and later remanded to judicial custody. He has been booked under non-bailable provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including charges related to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and outraging the modesty of a woman. Police have since begun collecting evidence, including identifying the caravan where the alleged incident took place and recording statements from crew members present on set.
Ranjith has denied the allegations, stating that he will prove his innocence in court.
A controversy around the IC
Even as the investigation progressed, attention quickly shifted to the IC constituted for the film.
Under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), every workplace with ten or more employees is required to have an Internal Committee (IC) to address complaints of sexual harassment. In 2022, following a petition by the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), the Kerala High Court clarified that film sets qualify as workplaces, making ICs mandatory for production units.
However, in this case, questions emerged on two fronts — whether the ICC was ever approached, and whether it functioned as an independent body.
According to OnManorama, producers associated with the film said no complaint had been raised before the ICC during the shoot, suggesting that the mechanism had been available but was not used. They also argued that the responsibility to raise a complaint rests with the survivor.
But this framing was challenged almost immediately. The WCC, in multiple statements, questioned not just whether the IC was approached, but whether it was accessible, responsive, or even functional in practice. The collective pointed to reports that IC members were “unaware” of the alleged incident despite it occurring on set, calling this a sign of deeper structural failure.
Notably, the Justice K Hema Committee report too had flagged similar concerns, noting that entrenched power structures in the Malayalam film industry can undermine ICs and limit their effectiveness in practice.
Conflict of interest and the lawyer’s exit
The controversy intensified with the role of advocate Mohammed Siyad, who appeared for Ranjith shortly after his arrest, but was also reportedly an external member of the IC constituted for the same film. Siyad’s appearance as defence counsel triggered criticism over a potential conflict of interest, given that IC members are expected to function as independent authorities in workplace harassment cases.
Amid the backlash, Siyad stepped down from the case on April 2, stating that he did not want to “fuel the controversy.” He maintained that there were no legal restrictions preventing him from representing Ranjith and said that the complainant had not approached the IC during the shoot.
His resignation, however, did little to quell concerns. Reports also raised questions about how the IC itself had been constituted, including inconsistencies in documentation and uncertainty over whether due process had been followed in appointing its members. The focus, in effect, shifted from a single allegation to the credibility of the redressal mechanism itself.
Why the survivor went to the police
Another key question that has shaped the discourse is why the survivor approached the police instead of the IC.
For the WCC, this is precisely the point. In a statement, the collective said the decision to go directly to the police reflected both the survivor’s courage and the failure of institutional safeguards. It argued that the existence of an IC on paper did not necessarily translate into trust or accessibility for those who may need it.
Beena Paul, a WCC member, told Onmanorama that “just having an IC for namesake is not enough,” raising questions about whether survivors are even aware of these committees or feel safe approaching them. She also pointed to the absence of audits and transparency around how many ICs are functional and how many complaints they handle.
At the same time, legal experts have noted that approaching an IC is not the only pathway available to survivors.
While ICs are meant to provide a workplace-level redressal mechanism, including inquiry and recommendations, survivors may choose to approach the police directly if they seek criminal action. In some cases, the choice may also be shaped by concerns over whether an IC is active, accessible, or independent.
A larger pattern of systemic failure
The latest case against Ranjith has unfolded just days after the Kerala government announced a new cinema policy that reiterates the need for effective ICs and proposes additional oversight mechanisms. It also comes in the shadow of the Hema Committee report, which documented widespread issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry, including harassment, lack of redressal, and entrenched power hierarchies.
For the WCC, the current case reflects a continuation of those findings. In its statements, the collective described the incident as evidence of a system that “simply does not function,” where compliance is treated as a formality and power structures undermine accountability. It also raised concerns that recommendations such as an independent redressal tribunal, as proposed after the Hema Committee report, have not been implemented.
As with many such cases, competing narratives have also emerged.
The defence has argued that the complaint was filed after disagreements during the shoot, including claims that the actor’s scenes were edited out. It has also pointed to the delay between the alleged incident in January and the filing of the complaint.
Police, however, have said the survivor was traumatised and required time and support before coming forward, which is a pattern not uncommon in sexual assault cases.
Notably, the current case is not the first time Ranjith has faced allegations of misconduct.
In the aftermath of the release of the Hema Committee report, a Bengali actor had earlier accused him of inappropriate behaviour during the shooting of his film Paleri Manikyam. The controversy had led to his resignation as chairman of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy. A case was registered at the time, though it was later quashed by the High Court, citing a significant delay in filing the complaint.