KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has ordered the state government to submit the full text of the Hema Committee report, which has sparked widespread debate and controversy across Kerala, particularly within the Malayalam film industry. The report, which was submitted on December 31, 2019, details allegations of sexual exploitation and harassment of women in the Malayalam film industry. However, its contents have not yet been made public, leading to sharp criticism of the state government for delaying its release.
On August 22, the High Court accepted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking an investigation into the sexual crimes detailed in the Hema Committee report. The petition calls for the State Police Chief to initiate criminal proceedings against those implicated in the alleged misconduct. In response, the court has directed the state government to submit the entire Hema Committee report in a sealed envelope for judicial review. Some of the important questions which the High Court has asked from the state government include:
· What actions the government would take in connection with the Hema Committee report.
· What is the government’s stand on the petition to take a case ?
· Are the issues, pointed out by the Committee, not serious ?
· Does the state government have the names of those who were testified ?
· Whether there are any crimes in the report against which the police can take up and register case direct.
· The government has to file an affidavit with details of actions it intends to take.
· The government has to inform the Court what steps have been taken so far.
The Court has directed the government to submit the full, uncensored text of the report in a sealed envelope, questioning whether the report was intended to gather dust on a shelf rather than prompt meaningful action.
This directive came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Paichira Nawaz, a public activist from Thiruvananthapuram. The case was heard by Acting Chief Justice A. Muhammad Mushtaq and Justice S. Manu, who expressed their dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the report, which was submitted on December 31, 2019. The Court’s intervention is seen as crucial, especially given Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s statement that no legal action could be taken without formal complaints.
The government, in its defense, informed the Court that it has not received any complaints and that action can only be initiated upon receiving such complaints. However, the Court was skeptical of this stance, emphasizing the need for the full text of the report, including sections that have been withheld from public release, to be made available for judicial review.
The released portions of the report have already caused a significant stir, shocking the Malayali community with revelations about some of their beloved film idols. The withheld parts, which concern specific allegations of sexual crimes, are now under intense scrutiny.
The government’s position is further complicated by the fact that the Hema Committee was appointed by the state itself. Victims who submitted statements to the Committee did so under the assurance of confidentiality, raising ethical questions about the government’s ability to take suo moto legal action. The government argued that it cannot violate this confidentiality, suggesting that formal complaints are necessary for any legal proceedings.
However, this argument has not been well-received by the public or legal experts. Critics point out that the individuals who reported to the Hema Committee may not have fully understood the difference between a government-appointed committee and an Enquiry Commission under the Commission of Enquiries Act. Many believed that their grievances would lead to immediate action, not bureaucratic inertia.
The issue has also drawn political attention, with senior BJP leader Shobha Surendran accusing the Kerala government of deliberately stalling the report. Surendran urged the state to initiate suo moto cases based on the report’s findings, alleging that Chief Minister Vijayan had deliberately suppressed the report. She claimed that the report was only released due to the efforts of the State Information Commission, not the government’s initiative.
