The Kerala Women’s Commission and the Women in Cinema Collective, which were impleaded in the case, opposed the plea of the producer and submitted that the report dealt with the issues faced by women working in the film field.
| Photo Credit: H. VIBHU
The Kerala High Court is set to pronounce its verdict on Tuesday (August 13, 2024) on a petition filed by a film producer challenging the State Information Commission’s (SIC) order to release contents of the Hema Committee report containing issues facing women in the Malayalam film industry.
On August 7, 2024, Justice V.C. Arun reserved the order for August 13, 2024 after conclusion of the hearing on a petition filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil challenging the SIC order directing the Kerala government to make public the Justice K. Hema Committee report on women’s working conditions in the film industry with limited redactions.
The Kerala Women’s Commission and the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), which were impleaded in the case, opposed the plea of the producer and submitted that the report dealt with the issues faced by women working in the film field. If the report was not made public, no purpose would be served. The WCC submitted that the bona fide of the petitioner was highly suspicious.
The petitioner contended that the disclosure would violate fundamental rights and the privacy right of the witnesses who deposed before the committee. Revealing the contents of the report even with purported redactions would pose significant risks of identifying individuals who deposed under assurances of confidentiality. As the the film industry was interconnected, the disclosure of the contents could lead to the identification of witnesses or complainants, potentially exposing them to retaliation or further harassment.
Steps to protect privacy
Counsel for the SIC submitted that the public had every right to know the contents of the report since it would help improve the conditions of the women in the film industry. The counsel pointed out that the commission had already taken steps to protect the privacy of individuals by redacting sensitive information. The SIC had ordered to remove personal information, and names, and excluded all indications which might conclude a name from the report. The SIC’s order was a balancing act and it completely took care of Section 11 of the RTI Act.
The State government pleader submitted that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the order.
