The report was to be disseminated at 4 PM to those who had petitioned the State Information Commission (SIC) for its disclosure, most of whom were journalists. Justice PM Manoj ordered the stay for one week.
KERALA: Today (24th July): The Kerala High Court stayed the release of the Justice K Hema Committee Report on women’s working conditions in the film industry, following a petition filed by Malayalam film producer Sajimon Parayil .
READ ALSO: Kerala High Court Upholds Bail Granted to Dileep in Actress Assault Case
The report was to be disseminated at 4 PM to those who had petitioned the State Information Commission (SIC) for its disclosure, most of whom were journalists.
Justice PM Manoj ordered the stay for one week.
The Court was addressing a petition from Malayalam film producer Sajimon Parayil, who contended that releasing the report could harm the film industry.
“This SIC order, if executed, would negatively impact the film industry broadly, compromising individuals’ privacy, breaching confidentiality, and potentially damaging the reputations and livelihoods of those within the industry, including those who provided their viewpoints and testimonials,”
Parayil’s plea argued.
Parayil argued that releasing the report would negatively impact the film industry by compromising individual privacy, breaching confidentiality, and potentially damaging reputations.
The Kerala government had established the Hema committee to investigate issues faced by women in the film industry, prompted by a 2017 petition from the ‘Women in Cinema Collective.’
The committee submitted its report in 2019, but the government had withheld it from the public despite numerous RTI requests. However, on July 5, the SIC ordered the report’s disclosure after redacting certain sections.
The plea further argued that the SIC’s order was against public interest and violated the privacy rights of various individuals, including Parayil.
“The disclosure would breach the confidentiality assured to those who provided testimony, potentially exposing them to retaliation and harassment,”
the plea contended.
However, during the hearing, the SIC’s Standing Counsel and the Government Pleader questioned Parayil’s locus standi, arguing that he had only a private interest.
“The report aimed to improve the condition of the movie industry. What has happened? Citizens paid for this, shouldn’t they know what has been done?” said Advocate M Ajay, representing the SIC.
Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, representing Parayil, argued,
“It affects my right to privacy. Tomorrow, if something happens… I was a scapegoat in this, my name was dragged into it.”
Ajay countered,
“All personal details have been redacted from the report to be made public. The petitioner’s only fear is that there may be some information about him. But that apprehension is unnecessary. There is a clear direction to withhold all personal information.”
Kidangoor urged the Court to prevent the report’s release, saying, “What is the urgency to disclose it today itself? It may be stayed for one or two weeks, and objections may be heard from affected parties.”
READ ALSO: “While Transfer of Working Women, Show Sympathy” Kerala High Court
Ajay questioned whether the report’s release should be halted based on Parayil’s concerns, arguing, “If someone posts something on social media about harassment with #MeToo or something, what can be done? What is the point of withholding this report in this digital age? On what basis does he want to stay this? He did not even participate. Why is he fearing this?”
Kidangoor responded,
“I am only on the legal aspect. As long as Section 11 is complied with, I have no objection. What is this insistence on releasing it today itself? My friend is only a counsel, my client is going to be affected.”
Ajay retorted,
“The committee was set up to look into an issue. If it is not used, then what is the point? The RTI Act might as well be burned then.”
Parayil contended that the SIC’s redactions were insufficient and that the order was against public interest and violated privacy rights, potentially exposing individuals to retaliation and harassment. During the hearing, the SIC and the Government Pleader questioned Parayil’s locus standi, arguing he had a private, not public, interest.
Advocate M Ajay, representing the SIC, noted that citizens deserved to know the report’s contents as it was intended to improve industry conditions. Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, representing Parayil, emphasized privacy concerns, arguing for a temporary stay to hear objections from affected parties.
Despite assurances from Ajay that all personal details were redacted, Kidangoor maintained that Parayil’s privacy could still be compromised. Ajay questioned the necessity of halting the report’s release based on Parayil’s concerns, arguing for the report’s disclosure in the public interest.
READ ALSO: Kerala High Court Quashes Swapna Suresh’s Bail Requests in Defamation Case
Ultimately, the Court decided to hear the matter in more detail later and issued an interim stay on the report’s release.
Additional advocates for Parayil included Benny Antony Parel, PM Mohammed Salih, Nazrin Banu, Ameer Salim, and Irene Mathew. Advocate M Ajay appeared for the SIC.
Case Title: Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala & Ors.
