Kerala HC questions state’s inaction on Hema Commission report

The Kerala High Court heavily criticised the state government for not taking action on the Hema Committee report, which on Tuesday highlighted the challenges faced by women in the Malayalam film industry.

A division bench of the court comprising Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice CS Sudha directed the government to hand over the entire report to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and prepare an action plan based on the findings of the report.

The court was hearing a series of public interest litigations (PILs) related to the Hema Commission report, which was filed in 2019 but has seen no government action in the years since. The court ordered the SIT to study the report in depth, determine whether there were any cognizable violations and outline steps the authorities could take in response.

The court expressed shock at the government’s delay, noting: “You got the report in 2019 and realised that women have problems. Why didn’t the government act immediately? Good governance is when you respond promptly when a problem is brought to the attention of the government. That is the essence of governance.”

The Hema committee, which was formed in response to growing concerns about sexual harassment and exploitation in the Malayalam film industry, recommended that the identities of victims and perpetrators be kept confidential, citing privacy concerns.

However, the Supreme Court questioned why no crimes had been recorded based on the findings in the report, especially since multiple cases of violations were described.

“Prima facie offences under the IPC and POCSO Act are found. Why has no action been taken?” the court asked, pointing out that even when a report contains allegations of criminal conduct, authorities are duty bound to take action.

The attorney general argued that the report did not reveal the identities of the victims or perpetrators, complicating the possibility of bringing charges. He also noted that the commission had urged the government to keep the report confidential because of the sensitive nature of the testimonies.

In response, the court said, “How do you know that the victims named in the report are not interested (in taking legal action)? Victims do not come forward for many other reasons. A simple statement by a rural resident before a police station, even if it amounts to a cognizable offence, the police are bound to register an FIR.”

The court gave the SIT two weeks to submit a detailed report on its findings and actions. It also stressed the importance of maintaining the privacy of all parties involved and warned the investigation team against making public statements or interviews that could jeopardize the process.