INTRODUCTION
Following the 2017 actress attack, the Kerala government had formulated the Hema Committee to examine the complications faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. The Kerala High Court, in its judgement dated October 14th, 2024 had directed the Special Investigating Team (SIT) to register an FIR under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 following the statements made by women six years ago who appeared before Hema panel. However, petitions challenging the same was brought to the Supreme Court by the film producer Sajimon Parayil and two actresses.
BACKGROUND
The case started off when the Kerala High Court constituting Special Bench of Justices A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and C. S. Sudha, instructed the SIT to register an FIR under Section 173 of the BNSS based on the statements provided by women in the Hema Committee. However, two actresses came forward and filed petitions in the Supreme Court stating that they wanted no part in the investigation and urged protection from being forced linked to the Justice Hema Committee report on sexual harassment and abuse in the Malayalam film industry.
The counsel, Siddharth Dave appearing for the two women (2nd and 3rd petitioner) who referred to them as ‘victims’, submitted that they provided the statements confidentially in the Hema Committee years ago and thus invoked the fundamental right to privacy of the two women. Further, the 1st petitioner argued that the victims’ remarks to the Justice Hema Committee six years later cannot be considered “information” under Section 173 BNSS since the victims have not later claimed the statements and are unwilling to pursue criminal charges. Therefore, the counsels representing the petitioners sought an interim stay against the Kerala Hight Court’s direction. Whereas, the counsels representing the State of Kerala and Women in Cinema Collective opposed the plea, and the advocate representing the Kerala Women Commission questioned the locus standi of the first petitioner.
KEY POINTS
- Victim’s Right to Privacy- Advocate Dave representing the two women contended that they had provided their statements purely for academic purposes and not to instigate any criminal proceedings. Further, the victims’ main object of the petition was to receive protection from being involved in the case. Therefore, Mr. Dave invoked the fundamental right of privacy of the two women.
- Non-Cooperation After FIR Registration- Justice Vikram Nath questioned Mr. Dave as to how can a person refuse to cooperate once a case is registered. Mr. Dave, however, contended that the FIR was registered on the basis of the High Court orders and not by the victims.
- Interference with the Discretion of the Police- The petition claimed that the October 14 order from the High Court to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) hampered the police’s ability to conduct an investigation and fairly determine whether or not a crime had been committed. It had questioned the High Court’s insistence on filing FIRs in spite of the victims’ and witnesses’ own “disinclination.” According to the appeal, based on their comments to the Justice Hema Committee, the witnesses and victims opposed SIT taking any action.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The opposing advocates contended that in case the witnesses do not cooperate, closure report has to be filed. The counsels also stated that the first and second petitions are not maintainable. However, the Supreme Court did pass any interim stay. The Court listed the case on December 19 for a detailed hearing of the two women seeking protection from prosecution in Malayalam film industry sexual harassment case.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court questioned how can the witnesses not cooperate with the investigation. They contended that they would not issue any notice in the third matter without hearing and therefore, did not pass any interim stay. The Court is to have a detailed hearing of the two victims on December 19, 2024.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY BAVYA PRESSAD
