The Kerala High Court's recent order to submit the full Hema Committee report has once again brought to light the Kerala government's lackadaisical approach to addressing the grave issues of sexual harassment and gender inequality in the Malayalam film industry. Formed in 2017, the Hema Committee was tasked with investigating these issues following the shocking abduction and assault of a prominent actress. However, almost five years later, the government has failed to make the report public or take any meaningful action on its findings, raising serious concerns about its commitment to justice and women's safety. The Hema Committee's report is said to contain damning revelations, including accounts of widespread sexual exploitation including minors, and even a drug mafia operating within the industry. Despite the gravity of these findings, the Kerala government has shown an inexplicable reluctance.
Intentional inertia? Examining government's role
The Kerala government's handling of the Hema Committee report has always been questionable. Formed in response to immense social and political pressure, the committee was tasked with investigating the conditions within the Malayalam film industry, particularly focussing on the harassment faced by women. The findings were dreadful, revealing not only widespread instances of sexual harassment but also the presence of a ‘Power Group’ controlling the industry, including the dissemination of illicit drugs.
Yet, instead of acting swiftly on these findings, especially on the information about the sexual exploitation statement of a 17-year-old girl and the drug mafia, the government chose to sit on the report, refusing to release it in full or take decisive action. This inaction by the Left government can only be interpreted in two ways: either the government is reluctant to confront the powerful figures implicated in the report, or it is simply indifferent to the predicament of the victims as well as the broader issue of gender justice. Both possibilities are deeply troubling and indicative of a broader malaise within the political establishment.
The failure to address the report's findings effectively leaves the victims and the general public disillusioned, further eroding trust in the government's ability to uphold justice. Moreover, this delay has allowed those implicated in the report to continue their activities unchecked, perpetuating a culture of impunity that is all too common in cases involving powerful individuals.
The legal path forward: Possibilities and challenges
The recent High Court order to submit the full report could open the door for legal action against those named in the Hema Committee report, if there is any. If the report is fully in the public domain, it will be imperative for the legal community, civil society, and the victims themselves to push for accountability. Inevitably, the report will create a far more effective impact.
When the court receives a report on such a sensitive matter, it holds several potential courses of action, which come under the 'suo motu’ power of the court. Firstly, the court could take cognisance of the report and immediately order the state government to take appropriate action. This direct intervention ensures that the state is held accountable for addressing the issue promptly and effectively. Alternatively, the court might instruct the police to file a First Information Report (FIR) based on the findings in the report. This legal action would formally initiate an investigation, leading to the potential prosecution of those involved.
Most significantly, the court might recommend the formation of a judicial commission to investigate the matter thoroughly. This is the most effective approach, as it ensures the investigation is conducted with the utmost secrecy, accountability, and transparency. A judicial commission can independently assess the situation, protect the identities of those involved, and provide a comprehensive report on the findings, offering a clear path to justice rather than a committee.
In cases where survivors or any witnesses for the exploitation are willing to provide statements against the exploiters, which is mandatory by law, the court can ensure their protection by ordering in-camera proceedings. As per the Supreme Court’s verdict, these proceedings are held privately, safeguarding the survivors’ identities from public disclosure. This approach not only protects the victims from potential retaliation but also encourages others to come forward, knowing that their privacy will be respected. This process upholds the dignity and safety of the survivors while ensuring that justice is served without compromising their anonymity.
Publishing the full report publicly is unlikely due to the potential legal and personal repercussions for those involved. The individuals named in the report may be influential and well-known, and if their names were made public, they could initiate criminal defamation proceedings against the survivors who provided statements. These survivors may have given their testimony under the condition of confidentiality, not intending for their words to be exposed publicly.
The risk of such legal backlash adds a complex layer to the situation, making public disclosure a potentially problematic issue. Recognising this, the court is more likely to opt for appointing a judicial commission, a more effective and secure method for addressing the exploitation. This commission can legally record the exploitation claims while ensuring the privacy and protection of the survivors. By doing so, the court can maintain the integrity of the judicial process, uphold the rights of the survivors, and still work towards delivering justice without compromising anyone's safety or reputation.
In light of precedents set by various judicial commissions appointed by the court, the court is well-positioned to consider the recommendation of the formation of a commission to address the current issues exposed in the committee report. Notably, the Justice Verma Committee, after the Delhi gang-rape itself, reflected the court's proactive role in tackling such issues. The committee further demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to addressing these critical concerns. The Justice Usha Mehta Commission, tasked with investigating sexual harassment against women, set crucial standards and guidelines for ensuring the safety and security of the women. Its recommendations significantly shaped policies, reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to ensuring safer and more accountable work environments for women.
These precedents, along with many others, including commissions formed on the Bhopal tragedy, the Delhi and Godra riots, the Babri masjid issue, and many other policy needs, show that there is no legal impediment to appointing a commission to ensure transparency and accountability in addressing sexual assault cases, reinforcing that such a move aligns with established judicial practices for handling sensitive matters.
However, legal proceedings are not without their challenges. The slow pace of the Indian judicial system, coupled with the potential for witness intimidation and evidence tampering, presents significant hurdles. The actor’s sexual assault case itself, which has dragged on for over six years, is a glaring example of how justice can be delayed to the point of being denied.
What’s next?
The Kerala High Court's order to release the full Hema Committee report can be seen as a call to action. The court might continue to exercise strict oversight to ensure that the report is not just another document that gathers dust in government archives. Swift and transparent legal action must follow the report's release, with the courts holding the government accountable for any further delays or attempts to shield powerful individuals from scrutiny.
It is evident that the public pressure has already played a significant role in bringing the Hema Committee as well as the committee’s report to light. It makes sure that the sustained activism will be essential in ensuring that the report’s findings lead to tangible change. Media coverage, public debates, and continuous advocacy could help keep the issue in the spotlight and prevent it from being buried by political manoeuvring.
Despite all the criticism against the inaction of the Left government, the Hema Committee report stands as a litmus test for the Kerala government’s commitment to gender justice and the rule of law. The protracted inaction on the report’s findings, coupled with the ongoing delays in the actor’s sexual assault case, paints a bleak picture of a state apparatus more concerned with protecting its own interests than with delivering justice. The recent High Court order is a step in the right direction, but it is only the beginning. The true test will be whether the government, the judiciary, and society at large can come together to ensure that the report’s findings are acted upon decisively and that those responsible for the atrocities it details are held accountable. Anything less would be a betrayal of the victims and a failure of the justice system itself.
Nabeel Kolothumthodi is the Parliamentary Secretary to a Lok Sabha MP and an alumnus of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. Views expressed here are the author’s own.