Kerala CM’s inaction on Hema committee report sparks outrage

A day after the Hema Commission report was released on 19 August, Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan announced that no investigations would be initiated by the government. This decision has faced considerable criticism.

Vijayan stated that while his government would not independently act against film personalities identified as sexual predators by women in the Malayalam film industry, it would protect the confidentiality of the testimonies. However, he mentioned that if any woman who testified came forward with a complaint, the government would take appropriate action.

Former director general of prosecution T. Asaf Ali slammed the chief minister’s stance, emphasising that according to the law of the land, the police must register a case and begin an investigation upon receiving information about any cognisable offence. He cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lalita Kumari v Govt of UP (2013), which mandates that an FIR must be registered under Section 154 of the CrPC without preliminary inquiry if the information reveals a cognisable offence. Mutatis mutandis, the same should apply with the new BNS legislation as well.

The Hema Commission report, a 233-page document, was released shortly after 2:30 p.m. on Monday, 19 August. Established under Justice K. Hema to address issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry following a 2017 sexual assault case involving actor Dileep, placement of the report in the public domain was delayed due to its sensitive content. It reveals that the industry often denies opportunities to those unwilling to 'cooperate' and grant sexual favours.

Ali underscored that the lack of action on the Hema committee report is concerning. The report highlights several serious issues, including sexual assault, molestation and wrongful confinement, all of which are cognisable offences as defined by Section 154 of the CrPC and Section 173 of the BNS.

“Failing to act on such matters is a serious lapse on the part of both the government and the police, allowing perpetrators to evade justice. The new law removes territorial limitations for filing an FIR, permitting the registration of a 'zero FIR' under Section 173 of the BNS,” added Ali.

Most of the offences mentioned in the Hema commission report are cognisable and are now public knowledge: assault to outrage the modesty of women (Section 354 of the IPC, now Section 74 in BNSS), use of force to disrobe a woman (Section 354B of the IPC, or Section 76 of the BNSS), rape (Section 376/63 IPC), sexual intercourse by a person in authority (Section 376C/68 IPC), and words, gestures or acts intended to insult the modesty of women (Section 509/79 IPC).

Opposition leader V.D. Satheesan accused the government of shelving the report and claimed it is protecting perpetrators rather than supporting victims. He called for an investigation led by female IPS officers and criticised the government for not acting on the numerous complaints it has received over the past four-and-a-half years.

“There is no need to submit a new complaint to initiate legal action. The government has had a substantial number of complaints for four-and-a-half years, yet it chose to keep them hidden. Immediate action is necessary to end exploitation in the film industry. An investigation led by female IPS officers should be carried out, and those responsible must be held accountable,” said Satheesan at a press briefing in Thiruvananthapuram.

Welcoming the release of the report, the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), an organisation of women professionals in the industry, expressed hope that the government would take all necessary steps to study and act upon the recommendations.

Saijitha Madathil, a founding member of the Collective, stated, “Our major hurdle was getting the Hema commission report released, which was a challenge involving numerous difficulties and even a court case from the WCC. This is just the beginning. We are still reviewing the report, and the film industry has yet to provide their feedback. We’re waiting to hear their responses.”

Most participants agreed to engage with the panel with the hope that their contributions would inform a government study focused on future reforms. According to Madathil, while there is broad agreement on the need for change, no one intends to pursue individual legal actions. The expectation is that the government will act based on its policies.

Former DGP Ali emphasised that accused individuals cannot plead privacy to avoid investigation. While their privacy is not protected, the privacy of victims must be safeguarded.

Ali pointed out that even if the Commission does not recommend specific actions, the police are still required to file a case. “The Commission's report does not need to include specific recommendations for the police to take action. This is similar to the Koothuparambu firing case, where former minister M.V. Raghavan was arrested after a Commission’s report, and then too the LDF was in power at the time,” Ali noted.

Given the importance of this case and its potential statewide impact, Ali stressed that the police should file an FIR and that the government should set up a special investigation team (SIT) to handle the investigation properly.

Rajya Sabha MP Sandosh Kumar from the Communist Party of India added that the Committee’s report was a significant eye-opener, underscoring the need for a comprehensive review beyond this report. He urged the government to convene a meeting with all stakeholders, including political leaders, to develop and implement a thorough law. This would ensure all perspectives are considered and effective measures are in place to prevent future issues.