Public Discussion Crucial To Solve Gender Issues In Malayalam Cinema, Apprehension That Media Will Malign 'Misplaced': Kerala High Court

“If the measures are to attain finality by implementation of the recommendations of the Justice Hema Committee, there has to be debates and discussions in the public domain, prompting the Government to act expeditiously. This can be achieved only by understanding the reasons that led to the recommendations of the report...The media has a major role in initiating such discussions. Therefore, the apprehension that the applicants may utilise the report to malign individuals is misplaced. The apprehension is based on a misconception about the role of media in nation building.”

Parayil had challenged the order of the State Information Commissioner to publish Justice Hema Committee Report. SIC had by an order on 5th July directed the State Public Information Officer to severe the information that is exempt under Right to Information Act and provide rest of the report to the applicants. It observed that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure. The Commissioner specifically instructed that there should not be any material which will lead to identification of individuals referenced in the report.

The petitioner had alleged that even after redactions, it would be possible to identify the person who made any statements and person against whom any allegations has been made.

Justice Hema Committee was constituted after an organisation, Women in Cinema Collective sought the intervention of Government in ensuring a safe environment for women in Malayalam film industry. The Committee had to study the following issues:

1. Issues faced by women in cinema and solutions to the problems
2. Service conditions and remuneration for women in cinema
3. Measures to enhance participation of women in all fields connected to cinema
4. How to bring more women into the technical side of cinema by giving concessions including scholarships etc.
5. How to help women into the technical side of cinema when they have to remain out of work due to delivery, child care or other health issues.
6. How to ensure gender equality in the content of cinema
7. How to encourage cinemas in which 30% of woman are engaged in production activities.
8. The Commission worked from 2017 to 2019.

The Committee submitted its report to the Government in December 2019. On 19.2.2020, Justice K. Hema in a letter to the Secretary of Cultural Affairs asked to keep the report confidential as women had disclosed various incidents of assault in in-camera proceedings. She added that the report was not to be parted in a routine manner.

Since, the report was submitted, there has been calls from many women in the industry to publish the report.

The Court noted that "vociferous request" by the members of the Women in Cinema Collective is an indication of the public interest involved in disclosing the Report. It also noted that Section 8(2) of RTI Act enables the authority to allow access of information in spite of Section8(1) by which certain information is exempted from disclosure, if public interest outweighs the harm to protected interest.

Counsel for the petitioners: Advocates Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Benny Antony Parel, P. M. Mohammed Salih, Nazrin Banu, Ameer Salim, Irine Mathew.

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates M. Ajay, Gokul D. Sudhakaran, T. R. S. Kumar, A. Parvathi Menon, Binoy Vasudevan, A. K. Preetha, N. Krishna Prasad, Bharath Mohan, Sriram R. B., Vaishnav Dath S., P. Parvathy, Sreejith Sreenath, Rincy Khader, K. V. Rajeswari, Devika Mohan

Case No: WP(C) No 24697/ 2024

Case Title: Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 530