The Kerala state government informed the High Court on Thursday, January 16, that a total of 40 first information reports (FIR) have been registered so far following the release of the Hema Committee report. Advocate General (AG) of Kerala, Gopalakrishna Kurup, submitted a note containing the details to the special bench of the High Court, comprising Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and CS Sudha. The bench had been formed on September 5 to exclusively hear cases related to the committee. The report, released in August 2024, exposed widespread sexual harassment within the Malayalam film industry.
The AG informed the court that the special investigation team (SIT) tasked with probing the cases had initially registered 35 cases. An additional eight complaints were later filed with the nodal officer appointed to address complaints of sexual harassment, resulting in five more FIRs being registered, the AG said.
Amicus curiae in the case, Mitha Sudhindran, also submitted a report containing a draft of a proposed law aimed at ensuring a fair workplace environment. The court was told that the draft law, titled ‘The Kerala Entertainment Industry (Equality and Empowerment) Act’, addresses issues such as working conditions, hiring practices, and wages.
The AG also informed the court that the state government would examine the draft law and provide a response. The court stated that it would review the draft as well. Further, the court observed that women face discrimination on multiple levels, and directed that an intersectional approach must be adopted to address the discrimination women face in the industry. “Let us go through the proposed draft. We want to see whether in the legislation the aspects with regard to the feminist viewpoint, more importantly the intersectionists’ viewpoint, have been incorporated," the bench observed.
“Although we have tackled discrimination to some extent, intersectionality is not usually addressed...There is still a big gap in intersectionality discrimination at multiple levels. Like a Dalit woman, she faces discrimination on multiple levels, as a woman and due to her social status. Not so much in Kerala but in northern states, it is more… Economic inequality faced by woman etc should be considered...you know, for example, women labourers. The economic inequality that you have from economically lower strata coupled with the fact that she is a woman. These are all aspects that needs consideration (sic),” Live Law reported the bench as saying.
The case, which was adjourned until February 6 for the next hearing, was first heard on September 10, 2024, when the bench slammed the state government for its inaction on the findings of the report: “We are surprised by this inaction. When it received the report or when DGP was given a copy in Feb 2021, some action must have been taken. Assuring confidentiality of women, we understand that. But the state govt is confronted with practices derogatory to women, what has it done? What is it that you are doing to address problems facing women, not just in cinema?” the court asked.
On October 14, the court ordered that legal action must be initiated regarding the instances of harassment detailed in the Hema Committee report, treating witness statements given to the committee as “information.” On November 21, the court admitted a petition filed by the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) seeking a ‘Cinema Code of Conduct’ to regulate the Malayalam film industry. On November 27, the court directed the SIT to appoint a nodal officer to act as a point of contact for witnesses who feel intimidated or threatened.
The special bench was formed on September 5 while the court was hearing an appeal filed by producer Sajimon Parayil, challenging a single-judge order that had allowed the release of the Hema Committee Report.
On July 6, the State Information Commission (SIC) issued an order directing the Kerala government to release the Hema Committee report to RTI applicants by July 25, after redacting the names and identities of witnesses. While the report was initially scheduled for release by 4 pm on July 24, Sajimon sought a court stay, claiming that its release would violate his privacy. However, the High Court directed the report’s release, and it was made public on August 13.
