Kerala High Court reserves verdict in plea against release of report on women's working conditions in movie industry

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday reserved it verdict in the petition challenging the proposed release of Justice K Hema Committee Report on women’s working conditions in the Malayalam film industry [Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala & Ors.]..Justice VG Arun today also allowed the impleadment applications moved by several parties including the Kerala Women's Commission. The Commission was in favor of releasing the conclusions and recommendations of the Justice K Hema Committee while excluding any deliberations in the report that could adversely affect personal privacy. It was submitted that the same would benefit the entire community of women working in the film industry which was the objective of constituting the committee in the first place. Women in Cinema Collective, which is the organisation that first called for study on the issues faced by women in the film industry, also moved an application supporting the disclosure of the report.The petition against disclosure of the report was filed by Malayalam film producer Sajimon Parayil who argued that such disclosure could adversely affect the film industry itself.When counsel for Parayil said that numerous impleadment applications have been filed in this case, Justice Arun orally remarked that it "shows the importance of this issue"..“This (SIC) 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,” Parayil's plea stated.The Kerala government had constituted the Hema committee to study the issues faced by women in the film industry after a a petition filed by Women in Cinema Collective in 2017.The Committee submitted its report to the government in 2019 but the State declined to make the report public despite several requests under the Right to Information Act. However, on July 5 this year, the State Information Commission directed the disclosure of the report after the redaction of certain portions.Parayil's petition before the High Court has alleged that only limited redactions were ordered by the SIC.It further argued that the order passed by the SIC was against public interest and violative of the right to the privacy of various persons including Parayil.“The disclosure would breach the confidentiality assured to those who provided testimony, potentially exposing them to retaliation and harassment,” he argued..The Committee Report was scheduled to be disseminated at 4 PM on July 24 to those who had petitioned the State Information Commission (SIC) for the report's disclosure.However, less than an hour before the deadline, the High Court had stayed its release..Over the course of several hearings since then, advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor representing Parayil, assailed the order of the SIC arguing that it did not indicate any change of circumstances to justify changing its stance since it had refused a similar RTI application in 2020. Kidangoor also contended that the SIC's order had not properly considered the exemption of personal information in Section 8 of the RTI Act or complied with Section 11 as it had not given notice to any affected parties before ordering the disclosure of the report. .However, advocate M Ajay, representing the SIC, questioned Parayil's locus standi to move such a plea as he had nowhere indicated how he, a third party, would be affected by the release of the report. Ajay also assured the Court that the SIC had complied with all requirements under the RTI Act, that it had scrutinised and removed all information that could indicate the identity of any third party and that it would welcome any direction to go through the report again to ensure that all personal information has been redacted. The Government Pleader too supported Ajay's contentions regarding Parayil's lack of locus to move such a petition. The counsel representing several of the applicants before the SIC also opposed Parayil's plea before the High Court. .After hearing all their submissions, the Court reserved its verdict in the matter. .Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Benny Antony Parel, PM Mohammed Salih, Nazrin Banu, Ameer Salim and Irene Mathew represented Parayil.Advocate M Ajay appeared for the State Information Commission.Advocate Parvathi A Menon appeared for the Kerala Women's Commission. .[Read Our Live Coverage of the Hearing]