THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: “No doubt... the larger public interest justifies the disclosure...” Thus reads paragraph 41 of a 30-page order issued by the State Information Commission on July 5. It further goes on to elaborate, in paragraph 43: “The flow of information is neither to be an unregulated flood, nor a cascade washing away every norm and procedure. It needs to be controlled but only as permitted under the RTI act, and no other.”
It was the sheer determination and grit of one individual, who stood like a rock against bureaucratic red-tapism, legal loopholes and official apathy, that ensured Kerala woke up to Malayalam tinsel town’s grim realities and dirty secrets kept under wraps for long.
State Information Commissioner (SIC) A Abdul Hakkim waged a lone battle to ensure that the larger public interest lying beneath the Justice Hema Committee report was catered to. Considering appeals from five applicants –some of them several years old seeking a copy of the report, Hakkim took a firm decision to keep the spirit of the RTI Act intact, choosing to rise beyond technicalities for the larger good.
He had to however do a tight rope-walk to issue an order that has virtually opened a Pandora’s box in the Malayalam film industry, revealing a dark underbelly comprising sexual exploitation, casting couch, gender discrimination and gross financial exploitation. This has also turned out to be a victory of persistent efforts by five journalists over several years. The SIC order itself shows the extent of effort behind the same.
“One of the appeals had already been considered and rejected by the then chief information commissioner four years ago. The officials in the cultural affairs department were coming up with different excuses so as not to part with the report. Even when directed to produce the report before the SIC for its review, the respondents said they were checking with the cultural affairs minister, state cabinet, waiting for legal opinion, and what not,” a source told TNIE, on condition of anonymity.
Finally, the report was submitted only when the SIC warned of judicial action, the source pointed out.
“It clearly shows the reluctance of a partisan section of officials. Curiously, the top echelons of the state government have always been open to the idea of releasing it under RTI,” the source said.
The Information Commission was always convinced of the noble intentions of the Hema Committee report. That’s why it explored the scope of reconsidering an appeal once rejected in the past. It therefore pointed out that holding back information, citing an observation made years ago, was premature.
Countering flimsy arguments by officials to deny public access to the report, the SIC observed, “Any document registered in a government office is a public record, and the public authority is its custodian. Applications, petitions, study reports, committee recommendations, bills and receipts submitted to the government are public records.” In what can be termed a tedious effort on his part to make his order legally foolproof, Hakkim went the extra mile to explore and quote a series of earlier verdicts and observations made by a slew of legal bodies and authorities, right from the former chief information commissioner to the Supreme Court, to justify his decision.
Observations and verdicts issued by both the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court, the Central Information Commission’s responses to objections raised by the ministry of minority affairs, gazette notifications by the ministry of law and justice, orders issued by the Central Information Commission and detailed analyses of the Right To Information Act were all referred to so as to make the order withstand legal scrutiny of any kind.
The results have noticeably turned out to be worth such painstaking efforts, as the Information Commission’s order had to undergo legal scrutiny thrice by different High Court judges – both single bench and division bench – who consistently upheld Hakkim’s decision. “If sources are to be believed, the SIC issued the order braving several obstacles, like pressure and coercion from different corners. The few days before the issue of the order turned out to be a traumatic experience for him. Of course, there are many officials who think the SIC shouldn’t have issued such an order that has literally opened a floodgate of allegations pouring out into the public sphere,” a source pointed out.
INFORMATION COMMISSION ORDER BASED ON JOURNALIST’S APPEAL
The historical SIC order was issued based on an appeal by journalist Lesly John, a news editor with Kairali TV. His application was first rejected, citing that it was a settled matter, and that the report contained personal information. Its disclosure was prevented by another order of the Information Commission in 2020. However, Lesly chose to take his legal battle to the SIC. “I was the only appellant before the Commission. When my appeal was rejected, I pointed out that, as per section 19 of the RTI, such information can be provided. Later, when they cited the involvement of personal information to reason why it cannot be given, we questioned the same, knowing that not parting with the report when there are mentions about assaults amounts to covering up criminal offences,” Lesly said. He says it was also an attempt to uphold media responsibility.
‘It was essential to bring it to public’s notice’
Eleven days after the Hema Committee had submitted its report to the state government, journalist Aniru Asokan filed an application seeking a copy of the report. He was the first person to approach the government seeking a copy under RTI. “My application on January 11, 2020, was rejected, saying that the report has personal information and hence cannot be given. The SIC endorsed the same while considering my appeal. I had even asked for the report masking the information that pertains to personal secrecy. Since the report had crucial information related to sexual exploitation in the industry, it was essential to bring it to the public’s notice, so as to ensure women’s safety in society,” said Aniru, a correspondent with the daily Madhyamam. Manoj Vijayaraj, R Ajith Kumar and Ullas A S are the other appellants mentioned in the SIC order.