Kerala High Court stays disclosure of report on women's working conditions in film industry

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday stayed the release of the Justice K Hema Committee Report on women’s working conditions in the film industry [Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala & Ors.]..The Committee Report was scheduled to be disseminated at 4 PM today to those who had petitioned the State Information Commission (SIC) for the report's disclosure. Most of the petitioners before the Commission were journalists. Justice PM Manoj has now stayed the release of the report for a period of one week. .The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Malayalam film producer Sajimon Parayil who argued that the disclosure of the report could adversely affect the film industry itself. “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 redaction of certain portions. Parayil's petition before the High Court 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,” the plea contended. .However, during the hearing today, Standing Counsel for the State Information Commission (SIC) and the Government Pleader appearing for the State questioned Parayil's locus standi to move this petition. They argued that Parayil merely has private interest. "The point of the report was to improve the condition of the movie industry. What has happened? The citizens paid for this, shouldn't they know what has been done?" said advocate M Ajay who appeared for the SIC.Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor represented Parayil (petitioner) today and submitted that it could be said with full certainty that the report would not affect the film producer's rights. "it affects my right to privacy. Tomorrow if something happens... I was a scapegoat in this, my name was dragged into it," Parayil's counsel argued.Advocate Ajay countered that 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 not necessary. There is a clear direction to withhold all personal information," Ajay said. Kidangoor, however, urged the Court to prevent the release of the report today."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," Kidangoor suggested. Ajay, meanwhile, questioned whether the report's release should be halted only on account of the concerns cited by Parayil."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 this? Why is he fearing this?" Ajay argued. "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," Kidangoor responded. "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," Ajay retorted. .However, the Court eventually decided to hear the matter in more detail another day and issued an interim stay on the report's release. .Apart from advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, advocates Benny Antony Parel, PM Mohammed Salih, Nazrin Banu, Ameer Salim and Irene Mathew also represented Parayil.Advocate M Ajay appeared for the State Information Commission. .[Read live coverage of hearing]