Kerala High Court stays release of report on gender inequality in Malayalam film industry
The state information commission’s directive ordering the findings to be made public violated the right to privacy, argued. filmmaker Sajimon Parayil.
![Kerala High Court stays release of report on gender inequality in Malayalam film industry](https://sc0.blr1.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/article/152955-pkrioaudob-1609939246.jpg)
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday stayed the release of the Justice K Hema Committee Report on sexual harassment and gender inequality in the Malayalam film industry, Bar and Bench reported.
The stay came hours before the report was to be released to the public.
Justice PM Manoj issued the interim stay while hearing a petition filed by filmmaker Sajimon Parayil, who challenged the Kerala State Information Commission’s July 6 directive ordering the findings of the committee to be made public.
Parayil’s plea stated that the state information commission’s order, if implemented, “would adversely affect the film industry at large, compromising individuals privacy, breaching confidentiality and potentially damaging reputations and livelihoods of persons with the industry including the ones who came forward with their viewpoints and testimonials”, Bar and Bench reported.
The three-member committee, comprising Justice Hema, veteran actor Sharada and former bureaucrat KB Valsalakumari, was formed in 2017, weeks after the Women In Cinema Collective met Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
The collective had demanded a probe into the problems faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. This came in the aftermath of an alleged sexual assault case involving actor Dileep.
The Hema committee submitted its report to the Kerala government in December 2019. However, the findings of the report were not made public.
In its July 6 order, the state information commissioner A Abdul Hakkim had issued directions to release the entire report, except sections that are prohibited from being made public under the Right to Information Act. He said that the delay in releasing the report had undermined the purpose of constituting the committee.
Hakkim also ordered that sensitive information, which could violate the privacy of individuals, be withheld.
However, Parayil contended that the information commission’s order was against the public interest and violative of the right to the privacy of various persons, including himself, Bar and Bench reported. “The disclosure would breach the confidentiality assured to those who provided testimony, potentially exposing them to retaliation and harassment,” his plea stated.
During the hearing, the standing counsel for the information commission and the government pleader questioned Parayil’s legal capacity to move the plea, alleging that he had a private interest.
Advocate M Ajay, representing the state information commission, said that all personal details will be redacted before the report is released.
“The petitioner’s only fear is that there may be some information about him,” Ajay said. “But that apprehension is not necessary. There is a clear direction to withhold all personal information.”
Appearing for Parayil, advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, however, urged the court to stay the publication of the findings.
“What is the urgency to disclose it today itself?” Bar and Bench quoted Kidangoor as saying. “It may be stayed for one or two weeks and objections may be heard from affected parties.”
The court decided to stay the report’s release and hear the matter in detail.