Gender Issues In Malayalam Film Industry: High Court Reserves Judgment In Plea Challenging Publication Of Justice Hema Commission Report

The Justice K. Hema Committee was established in 2017, and tasked with studying and suggesting solutions for issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry.

The plea was filed by Malayalam film producer, Sajimon Parayil challenging the order of the State Information Commissioner to disclose the contents of the Hema Commission Report after redacting portions which affected the privacy of persons who gave testimonies to the Commission and other connected persons.

Justice V G Arun reserved the judgment for August 13, 2024 (Tuesday).

Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that there is no public interest in publishing the contents of the report since the State Government has formed a committee and action has been taken. It was argued that Kerala is the only State in the country where a committee has been constituted for formulating a policy for the benefit of women working in the film industry. It was stated that the policy is being formulated by taking into suggestions made by Justice Hema Commission Report.

The Counsel referred to the decisions in R K Jain v Union of India, Central Information Commission, Supreme Court of India v Subash Chandra Agarwal to state that authorities must consider the element of nature and content of information, dangers and benefits to public, consequence of non-disclosure, confidential obligation etc. while assessing the public interest involved in disclosing information under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The Counsel stated that the mandate under Section 11 of the RTI Act has to be followed while disclosing third-party information. It was argued that the Commission decided to publish the report without hearing the affected parties. It was thus argued that the publication of a report is bad in law for non-compliance of the procedures mandated in Section 11 of the Act for disclosure of third-party information.

Advocate M Ajay, appearing on behalf of the State Information Commission submitted that the petitioner has no locus to approach the Court. It was argued that he is not an affected party and that his rights were not affected. It was contended that the State Public Information Officer has redacted the relevant details regarding third parties, and their names or specifics will not be disclosed. Therefore, it was stated that there is no violation of Section 11 of the RTI Act regarding the disclosure of third-party information and hence no breach of privacy. The Counsel further gave assurance to the Court that details concerning third parties were redacted and no private details will be disclosed.

The Counsel on behalf of the State Information Commission further submitted that the decision to publish the Hema Commission Report now is due to various changes in circumstances including, change in law. It was argued that the Hema Commission conducted a study on the issues faced by women in the film industry, including safety concerns, gender equality, and the encouragement of women's participation. It was thus stated that these are general and relevant issues, making their disclosure a matter of public interest.

Advocate N Krishna Prasad, instructed by Advocates Gokul D Sudhakaran, Bharath Mohan appearing on behalf of the 5^th respondent who filed an RTI application for disclosure of the report submitted that the right to information flows from Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution. It was stated that the judicial approach must be to advance the right to information rather than to hinder it. It was stated that denial of information to the public has a huge impact and that must be considered by the Court. It was further stated that the Justice Hema Committee was formed to achieve laudable objectives enshrined under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

Advocate A. Parvathi Menon, on behalf of Kerala Women's Commission and Advocate Binoy Vasudevan, on behalf of Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) submitted before the Court that public interest will not be achieved if Justice Hema Commission Report is not made public. It was stated if the Justice Hema Commission Report has to fulfil its intended objective, it must be made public, as failing to publish it will render it purposeless. Advocate A. K. Preetha, advocate of Dhisha represented Nadira Mehrin and Sanjana Chandran working in the Malayalam Film Industry.

Case Name: Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others

Case Number: WP(C) 26497/ 2024