Siddique's anticipatory bail plea: A case study in victim-blaming

Men accused of sexual assault or harassment shaming the complainant by attempting character assassination is not new. Yet, in Malayalam actor Siddique's anticipatory bail plea for a rape case, this tactic took centre stage, with the survivor subjected to cruel slut-shaming.  Even the Kerala High Court couldn't overlook this, prompting the court to describe it as "unwarranted and uncharitable". The court then refused to grant him anticipatory bail. 

Senior criminal lawyer Raman Pillai represented Siddique, and his main contention for seeking bail was built entirely on discrediting the survivor by pulling up posts from her Facebook account and citing the delay in filing a complaint. Raman Pillai submitted a total of 17 annexures, of which 12 were Facebook posts of the survivor. TNM went through all these posts and found that many of them were unrelated to the issue. In the story, we explain how these posts were either her social commentary on various issues or were instances of her venting out her frustration. However, Siddique claimed that these posts showed she was not a “vulnerable woman” and instead showed how she could openly engage in “vitriol and profanity”.

Siddique is not a small name in Malayalam cinema. The actor who started his career in 1985, has over the years, become a powerful presence in the industry as an actor and producer. He was the general secretary of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artistes (A.M.M.A.), the largest actors’ welfare organisation in Malayalam cinema, formerly headed by superstar Mohanlal. 

In the present case, in which Siddique approached the Kerala HC for anticipatory bail, the survivor mentioned in her complaint that the actor befriended her through Facebook in 2014. She stated that he frequently interacted with her and her mother over the phone and via Skype, encouraging her to work in films, and assuring mentorship from his side. 

In 2016, he allegedly invited her for the preview of a film in Thiruvananthapuram’s Nila theatre, when she first met him in person. She said in her complaint that he later invited her to his room in Hotel Mascot to discuss casting her in an upcoming film, in which his son was to play the lead. It was during this meeting that he allegedly raped her.

The construct of an ideal survivor

In his bail petition, Siddique attacked the survivor's character by focusing on her social media activity and portraying her as not fitting the typical image of an "ideal survivor." He claimed that, in her complaint, she portrayed herself as “a vulnerable, middle-class, single daughter who lacked the courage to report the incident earlier, and who continues to suffer from intense trauma and fear for her life”. He then cited the survivor’s Facebook activities in an attempt to establish the opposite.

Siddique’s counsel presented as many as 12 Facebook posts of the survivor as annexures, including a post from as early as 2019.  

There were two main arguments put forth by Siddique with the help of these posts. First, he claimed she gained public attention not for her acting talent but for naming and shaming people in the film industry on social media. 

Then, he described her as having a “carefully constructed facade of an ordinary woman”. He said that her online activity contradicted her claims of fear and trauma, showcasing a different reality. The bail petition argued that her public rhetoric demonstrates her ability to engage in “vitriolic speech”, undermining her claims of fear and trauma.

The first annexure Siddique submitted was a Facebook post from October 2018 in which the survivor spoke about  a movie director who allegedly misbehaved with her.

The next is a Facebook post from May 21, 2019 in which she first disclosed about Siddique. She clearly says that she got triggered after she watched a press conference of the actor from 2018. In the press meet, Siddique and late actor KPAC Lalitha had come to the defence of actor Dileep.  

The next post is from September 18, 2020 in which the survivor has described the assault in more detail. This post was her reaction to news articles at the time which said that Siddique, Bhama, Bindu Panicker and several others had turned hostile in the 2017 actor assault case and had refused to indict Dileep. 

In her post, she wrote, “‘Even if you didn’t agree to insert [my penis], it’s not a problem. Can I still do the rest?’ This is what actor Siddique asked me while behaving badly, and his sudden change of attitude is not surprising. I don’t know if Bhama and Bindu Panicker have thought of this as a one-person struggle until now. This struggle is also a fight for justice for all women, including you and me.”

The survivor then gave a detailed interview to the Times of India. The news and her post sharing the article has been added as the next two annexures by Siddique.