‘Delay in case against Kunhu Muhammed gives accused time to escape’; WCC criticises govt

# News Desk
WCC logo, PT Kunhu Muhammed  | Photo: Mathrubhumi
WCC logo, PT Kunhu Muhammed | Photo: Mathrubhumi

The Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) has criticised the government over the sexual assault case against filmmaker, former MLA and Left fellow traveller PT Kunhu Muhammed. In a statement, the WCC said the police’s slow pace in the case is alarming and deserves protest. The organisation alleged that the delay amounts to giving the accused — a senior filmmaker and politically influential former MLA — time to escape.

“The sexual assault allegedly committed by Kunhu Muhammed, who is the chairperson of the IFFK Selection Committee, against a woman film professional is a grave aberration in the conduct of the festival. Despite the woman herself informing top authorities about the assault that took place at a government institution/workplace, the delay in taking action is alarming and condemnable. This is damaging to the reputation of IFFK,” the WCC said.

“Keeping the accused away from IFFK venues is an appropriate step. But why has the Academy not taken action in accordance with the law? This is a moment that demands urgent intervention from the government that claims to prioritise women’s safety. This delay is effectively giving the accused — a senior filmmaker and politically influential former MLA — time to escape. The promise of safety she trusted has been betrayed. Ensuring strict punishment is the only course before the government. We demand that action be taken immediately, even as IFFK is underway,” the statement said.

The incident allegedly occurred last month. According to the woman film maker, during the IFFK selection screening, PT Kunhu Muhammed behaved inappropriately with her in a hotel room in Thiruvananthapuram city. She alleged that Kunhu Muhammed invited her to his hotel room under the pretext of a dinner reception and then sexually assaulted her.

The complaint was submitted via email to the Chief Minister’s office. Although the complaint was filed on November 27, it was forwarded to the police only on December 2. Subsequently, the Cantonment Police registered the case only on December 8. There was widespread criticism over the delay in registering the case.