Hema Committee report: SC agrees to hear women who do not want to prosecute

The top court to hear two women seeking protection from prosecution in Malayalam film industry sexual harassment case on December 19

The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 12, 2024) agreed to hear two women who have urged protection from being compelled to participate in a prosecution linked to the Justice Hema Committee report on sexual harassment and abuse in the Malayalam film industry.

Appearing before a Bench headed by Justice Vikram Nath, senior advocate Siddharth Dave, who termed his two women clients as “victims”, said the State could go ahead, register cases and prosecute the perpetrators, but they wanted no part in it. The court listed the case on December 19 for a detailed hearing.

Also Read: 32 FIRs registered based on Hema committee report, Kerala govt. informs HC

Mr. Dave invoked the fundamental right to privacy of the two women.

The women have challenged the orders of the Kerala High Court, directing the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to register First Information Reports (FIRs) based on the statements recorded by the Justice Hema panel from women who appeared before it.

“The State can investigate whoever it wants, whoever is willing, but they cannot compel me to give my statement (to the SIT) if I am not interested in prosecuting these persons. The State cannot say ‘we are going to prosecute regardless of what you say’,” Mr. Dave submitted.

Justice Nath questioned Mr. Dave’s line of arguments, asking whether a witness had any discretion to not cooperate with an investigation of a crime.

“Supposing an FIR is registered and the State is prosecuting it. Can you oppose an investigating agency from recording your statement? You can later go to court and turn hostile, or you need not go to court in which a non-bailable warrant would be issued against you… But how can you say that once a case is registered, you will not cooperate in the probe?” Justice Nath asked.

Mr. Dave said the FIRs were registered on the basis of the High Court orders. The women had made their statements confidentially to the Justice Hema Committee years ago. The FIRs were not lodged on the basis of any complaint filed by them with the police or any investigating agency. “We want some amount of privacy now. We do not want our statements to come out. We cannot be compelled,” Mr. Dave insisted.

Appearing for the State of Kerala, senior advocate Ranjit Kumar said the High Court had made it clear that “in case the witnesses do not cooperate and if there is no material to proceed” appropriate steps could be taken for closure of the case.

The women had intervened in a petition filed by a film producer, Sajimon Parayil, represented by senior advocate K. Parameshwar and advocate A. Karthik, who had challenged the High Court’s direction to register First Information Reports on each and every statement made by victims/witnesses to the Justice Hema Committee.

Also Read: Reality of reel life, exploitation as a structural problem

The petition said the High Court direction to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in an October 14 order interfered with the discretion of the police to investigate and fairly reach a conclusion on whether or not a crime was committed. It had questioned the High Court’s insistence on registration of FIRs despite “disinclination” expressed by witnesses/victims themselves. The petition said the witnesses and victims were against SIT taking any action on the basis of their statements to the Justice Hema Committee.

“Admittedly, the witnesses or the victims who are the aggrieved persons have already expressed their disclination. Therefore, any statement recorded in the report of the Committee which was recorded almost five-six years ago cannot be considered as ‘information’ under Section 173 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), especially when they are subsequently not asserted the same,” the petition has contended.

Published - December 12, 2024 04:48 pm IST