Kochi: Kerala high court Tuesday said it was taken aback by the state govt’s inaction for four years on the Justice K Hema Committee report on working conditions of women in Malayalam film industry.
“When the state govt is apprised of a malady in society and commission of several offences, what is the bare minimum govt has to do? We are curious, rather, we are perplexed or taken aback by the inaction on part of the state,” remarked the special division bench of Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and C S Sudha while reviewing petitions related to the committee report.
The bench has directed the state to provide full copy of the report, including redacted pages and annexures, to the SIT to suggest requisite action. SIT, constituted to probe complaints of sexual assault/harassment in the industry, has been asked to submit within two weeks a detailed report in a sealed cover on potential action based on the committee findings. The court also instructed the state to file a counter affidavit along with SIT’s action-taken report. It has posted the matter to Oct 3 for further hearing.
“The report prima facie reveals multiple offences under IPC and Pocso Act. It also refers to non-sexual issues, such as remuneration. Action should be taken, and if a victim does not wish to prosecute, so be it. But why can’t an investigation begin?” the bench said.
Leader of opposition V D Satheesan welcomed the HC decision and said this is exactly what the opposition had demanded. He said it was a setback for govt which tried to protect the “predators”.
During the hearing, the bench sought details of action taken on the report. Advocate general K Gopalakrishna Kurup replied that SIT was formed on Aug 25 and 23 cases registered.
The advocate general argued the committee was tasked with identifying issues faced by women in cinema and proposing solutions. The report was forwarded to the director general of police in 2021. Additionally, a committee was formed in 2023 to draft a cinema policy for the state. Kurup informed court that he had the full report with him and it could be handed over in a sealed cover as directed by the court. But the bench instructed him to keep it in safe custody in his office until required later.
“When the state govt is apprised of a malady in society and commission of several offences, what is the bare minimum govt has to do? We are curious, rather, we are perplexed or taken aback by the inaction on part of the state,” remarked the special division bench of Justices A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and C S Sudha while reviewing petitions related to the committee report.
The bench has directed the state to provide full copy of the report, including redacted pages and annexures, to the SIT to suggest requisite action. SIT, constituted to probe complaints of sexual assault/harassment in the industry, has been asked to submit within two weeks a detailed report in a sealed cover on potential action based on the committee findings. The court also instructed the state to file a counter affidavit along with SIT’s action-taken report. It has posted the matter to Oct 3 for further hearing.
“The report prima facie reveals multiple offences under IPC and Pocso Act. It also refers to non-sexual issues, such as remuneration. Action should be taken, and if a victim does not wish to prosecute, so be it. But why can’t an investigation begin?” the bench said.
Leader of opposition V D Satheesan welcomed the HC decision and said this is exactly what the opposition had demanded. He said it was a setback for govt which tried to protect the “predators”.
During the hearing, the bench sought details of action taken on the report. Advocate general K Gopalakrishna Kurup replied that SIT was formed on Aug 25 and 23 cases registered.
The advocate general argued the committee was tasked with identifying issues faced by women in cinema and proposing solutions. The report was forwarded to the director general of police in 2021. Additionally, a committee was formed in 2023 to draft a cinema policy for the state. Kurup informed court that he had the full report with him and it could be handed over in a sealed cover as directed by the court. But the bench instructed him to keep it in safe custody in his office until required later.
