The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL requesting a survey on sexual harassment in the film industry, citing a lack of empirical evidence and specific complaints. The bench noted that without concrete data, the petition was speculative and redundant, emphasizing that future petitions must rely on factual evidence rather than presumptions or unsubstantiated claims.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a comprehensive survey on sexual harassment within the Indian film industry, citing a lack of empirical evidence and specific complaints. The petitioner also sought the effective implementation of recommendations from the Justice K Hema Committee, particularly regarding the applicability of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013 in the film sector.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the petition was speculative and lacked substantial data. The court stated that without concrete complaints or identifiable cases where remedies were unavailable, such a PIL could not proceed.
“The entire plea is based on surmises without any empirical data. In so far as the K Hema Committee report is concerned, complaints have already been filed, and some action has been taken. In the given circumstances, we do not consider it appropriate to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner,”
the court ruled, closing the matter.
The petitioner, Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi, a practicing advocate, requested that the National Commission for Women (NCW) submit a study report to the court and the Union of India. The plea called for legislative reforms to address sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination in the film industry and ensure robust nationwide measures.
The bench emphasized that a PIL must rely on factual evidence and not mere presumptions. It stated that the Justice K Hema Committee had already reviewed complaints and taken appropriate actions, rendering the petitioner’s claims redundant.
Read Also: 498A | “Mere Harassment Not Sufficient To Find Accused Guilty Of Abetting Suicide”: Supreme Court
“While a PIL can be filed, it must be based on factual evidence rather than presumptions,” the bench clarified. The court refused to engage in what it described as a “roving and fishing inquiry”.
The petitioner argued that certain definitions under the POSH Act, 2013, including the term “aggrieved woman” under Section 2(a), fail to address the unique dynamics of the film industry. He highlighted the transient, freelance, and informal nature of employment in this sector, which often leaves individuals vulnerable to exploitation and outside the ambit of legal protections.
Despite these concerns, the court found no merit in the PIL and dismissed it, urging petitioners to base future claims on factual, empirical data.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES