KOCHI: It’s been five years. But what can we do, other than be hopeful?” asks Bina Paul, the national award-winning film editor and former vice chairperson of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy.
She is talking about the Justice K Hema Committee report, which could be a game changer for the film industry and go a long way in ensuring the safety and interests of women in the sector. “Only when the report comes out can we understand the state of the Malayalam film industry and how it was functioning when Justice Hema was preparing it. Only then the recommendation can have any value,” she explains.
The Kerala State Information Commission (SIC) recently ordered release of the report. However, a petition was filed in the High Court seeking to stay the move.
Now, finally, after much anticipation, postponements and stays, the wait of women in the industry and the RTI applicants who sought a copy of the report, might come to an end on Tuesday evening as the High Court hears the matter.
The path was a long-winded one. Here, TNIE rewinds to the fateful day in 2017, when the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) met the chief minister requesting to form a committee to investigate the pressing issues faced by women in the film industry and suggest appropriate measures.
Their plea for action came after a shocking incident where a prominent Malayalam actor was abducted and sexually assaulted in a moving car. The public outcry intensified after the arrest of actor Dileep, who allegedly conspired in the crime. The government decided to constitute the committee on July 1, 2017.
“They did listen to us and formed a committe,” Bina remembers. The committee was chaired by retired Kerala High Court Judge K Hema. Veteran actor Sharada and retired IAS officer K B Valsala Kumari joined her in the mission as part of the committee.
Their task was huge: Find the issues faced by women in cinema and recommend solutions for them. They looked into various other problems too — how are the service conditions for women, their remuneration, how to enhance the participation of women in all fields connected to cinema, how to bring more women into the technical side of movies, and how to provide child care and health benefits.
From ensuring gender equality to encouraging cinemas to have 30 per cent women in production activities, the committee had an ambitious set of tasks.
“The three-member committee set out to collect evidence by interviewing not only women but also men in the industry. Many spoke to them and opened up,” says actor Sajitha Madathil, another member of the WCC.
The committee recorded detailed accounts of sexual harassment, wage disparities, and blacklisting from work, among other issues faced by women.
Between November 16, 2017, and December 31, 2019, they continued their investigation and after nearly two-and-a-half years of marathon inquiry, they submitted a 295-page report to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on December 31, 2019, together with documents, audio, and video evidence in support of its findings.
The government spent Rs 1.06 crore for the committee as remuneration and related expenses. Interestingly, the government decided not to make the report public. And, to date, it has not taken any concrete action based on the report. During the second Pinarayi government’s rule, Minister Saji Cherian formed a new committee to examine the recommendations of Justice K Hema.
‘Recommendations alone not enough’
Apart from the WCC, many agree that the recommendations of the committee alone will not suffice in solving an issue, which is deeply systemic.
“Without knowing why, and understanding the issue, how can we solve it?” asks Sajitha. “All three members of the committee provided a list of individual recommendations, not even a comprehensive one. To put it simply, how can a doctor treat a patient if the cause of the disease remains unknown,” she says.
Bina agrees. “We need a systemic change, and for that, we need to understand the state of the industry and the issues it has. Ultimately, the report is about the working conditions of women in an informal sector,” she says.
Despite various people filing applications under the RTI Act to get a copy of the report, other documents and material objects, all were dismissed saying that they are exempted under the RTI Act as personal information violating privacy. This order by the Information Commission came out on October 22, 2020.
Later, a second appeal was filed before the Kerala State Information Commission (SIC), pointing out the lack of satisfactory information. And on July 5, 2024, the SIC issued a detailed order directing the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to provide all the information and attested copies of all relevant pages from the report, except those exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
It also directed the officer to personally scrutinise the report and sever the information exempt from disclosure.
“While providing attested copies of the report, the SPIO should ensure that the materials do not lead to the identification of individuals referenced in the report or compromise their privacy,” the order said. The SIC ordered the exemption of para 96 of page 49 of the report, para 165 to 196 (pages 81 to 100), and the appendix, held by A Abdul Hakkim, State Information Commissioner.
However, two days before the date, in an unexpected move, film producer Sajimon Parayil moved a petition before the High Court challenging the order of the SIC. The petition stated that the disclosure violates fundamental privacy rights, breaches the confidentiality promised to witnesses, and goes against public policy. The petitioner said the order infringes upon the fundamental right to privacy, as upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Justice K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India.
The petition also highlighted that widespread disclosure of the report, even with redactions, poses significant risks of identifying individuals who provided testimonies under assurances of confidentiality.
“The unilateral decision to disclose the report without prior consultation violates principles of natural justice, denying affected parties, including stakeholders in the film industry, the opportunity to respond to potential allegations or criticisms that could unjustly damage their reputations and livelihoods,” said Sajimon. He feared that making the report public could lead to the identification of the witnesses, potentially exposing them to retaliation or further harassment.
During the hearing of the petition, Advocate M Ajay, counsel for the SIC, questioned why the petitioner, a film producer, was trying to prevent the disclosure of the report, noting that it had been shelved for more than four-and-a-half years. The public has a right to know the contents of the report, as it was meant to improve conditions in the film industry. He also pointed out that the commission had already taken steps to protect the privacy of individuals by redacting sensitive information.
And just an hour before the scheduled reveal of the report, the single bench of the High Court which heard the case on July 24 stayed the release.
“We are not looking to drag names. However, the findings of the report have to come out. Whether there is a casting couch in the industry, whether pay disparity exists or not, whether the working conditions of women are problematic, etc. need to be revealed,” explains Sajitha.
“Ultimately,” adds Bina, “as the government plans to come out with a film policy, we want to point out that gender is also one aspect it should consider. This report provides information for the same.”
Now, on Tuesday, the court will hear the petition once again and ultimately decide the future of the film industry.
What did the Justice K Hema Committee tell the Cultural Affairs Department?
The committe’s letter dated February 19, 2020, says: “I would also bring to your kind notice the need to keep the report confidential since it contains details of sexual assault, harassment, and abuse which were disclosed to the Committee by various women in privacy in in-camera proceedings. We have been following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions to keep the matter extra confidential. I would also take the liberty to alert you to follow these principles, before parting with the report to anybody in a routine manner.”
T Asaf Ali, former Director General of Prosecution
There are exemptions from disclosure under the RTI Act like information, disclosure of which would affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or that relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity. However, it has been made clear that information about the allegation of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded. Information sought squarely falls under the category of human rights violation and public interest. From the facts, circumstances, it is very evident that the disclosure outweighs the alleged harm of breach of privacy. Then, why the government is withholding vital documents and material objects like pen drives even to the Information Commission is shrouded in mystery.
A K Balan, former minister
The Justice Hema Committee was not formed based on the Commissions of Inquiry Act. It was appointed for a fact-finding inquiry based on the representation of the Women in Cinema Collective. We have provided all facilities to the committee to look into the matter, and they filed a report. If it was formed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, the report would have to be placed before the assembly along with the action taken report. But in this case, there is no such mandate. The matter is now pending before the Court.