Kerala HC Extends Nodal Officer's Jurisdiction To Receive Complaints Of Victims From Film Industry Who Were Not Before Hema Committee

Previously, the Special Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice C. S. Sudha had directed the Special Investigation Team, probing offences relating to Justice Hema Committee Report, to nominate a nodal officer to prevent alleged intimidation and threatening of witnesses by the accused or other persons.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranaryanan, representing WCC enquired if it would be possible for the SIT to listen to the complaints of other persons who are similarly harassed but were not before the Justice Hema Committee.

The Court stated that the nodal officer who was appointed can also take the complaints of other individuals in similar situations, regardless of whether they have provided statements to the Justice Hema Committee or not.

Court stated, “while the nodal officer has been nominated pursuant to our earlier order and sufficient publicity to the name and details of the said nodal officer is given so that persons who feel threatened, intimidated during the investigation on their complaints submitted before SIT can approach before the SIT with such complaints. It would be desirable to extent the jurisdiction of nodal officer to cover even those grievances that will be raised by those persons in the film industry who have not approached the Hema Committee, so that any such person can submit individual grievances with regard to any harassment/abuse faced by them to the nodal officer for forwarding to SIT for investigation of the same. We see no impediment to expanding the jurisdiction of nodal officer for above purpose. We accordingly direct that the nodal officer shall on receipt on any such compliant from persons in film industry, promptly forward the same to SIT for investigation by ensuring confidentiality…”

The Court however clarified that they must give their complaints within a specific time frame. It said, “we will keep the window open till 31^st Jan.”

Advocate Sandhya Raju submitted before the Court that the deadline must be extended and must not be limited till January 31^st, since many persons remain fearful and would need more time to come forward.

The Court stated that SIT cannot continue indefinitely since it is carrying criminal investigation. It stated that aggrieved persons can approach police at any time even after January 31^st. However, the Court clarified that aggrieved persons need not wait and must approach the SIT by January 31^st.

Court orally said, “This window is open only for the purposes of this. Suppose you have a compliant of harassment, you can always go to the police station… …the only advantage you get through this window is that you get confidentiality, whereas when you go to normal SHO, your name will come as complainant… why would a person who is already aggrieved wait for a period beyond what the Court is permitting…You already have a platform….there is a certain protection that we can ensure…it will be from SIT to Court and no interreference in between. If that does not inspire the confidence of those persons, then nothing will.”

As such, the matter has been posted after vacation for further hearing.

Case Number: WPC 41327/2024 & Connected Matters

Case Title: Women In Cinema Collective v State of Kerala & Others & Connected Matters