Hema report: Kerala HC asserts victims should not be forced to undergo traumatic testimonies

Kochi: The special bench of the Kerala High Court set up to hear cases arising from the Justice Hema Committee Report queried on Thursday whether the government, armed with sufficient material in the complaint, could proceed through the Special Investigation Team (SIT) even if the complainant is not interested in pursuing it. The court posed this query while hearing pleas related to further procedures concerning the Hema report.

The bench, comprising Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice C S Sudha, noted that certain individuals who had provided statements to the SIT were unwilling to pursue the matter further. The bench observed that a victim can trust the law and pursue legal remedy. But if a victim wants to be left alone, then we have to respect her privacy also. It is her choice, the bench added. 

The court observed that victims should not be forced to undergo traumatic experiences again by testifying if they are unwilling. It suggested that investigating officers gather information from other sources instead. The court stressed the importance of prioritising the victim's emotional wellbeing during legal proceedings.

Meanwhile, the SIT, after reviewing the unredacted Hema Committee Report, submitted its findings to the court in a sealed cover.

The court expressed its concerns about broader societal issues affecting women, beginning with the film industry. The bench instructed the state to examine the suggestions it had submitted and propose additional measures to address these issues. 

On the matter of formulating a film policy, the court recommended including individuals with a feminist perspective.  

The court also questioned what specific actions the state government could take to ensure that women are portrayed correctly, or whether it would require intervention from the Central Government. 

The court also raised concerns regarding harassment faced by individuals not officially hired for a film, noting that the current provisions of the POSH Act may not adequately address such issues. It was informed that a draft Bill was being prepared to cover individuals who are not formal employees but still face harassment.

The bench agreed with the government’s position that the promotion of more progressive films could help inspire and empower women. It also questioned whether statutory interventions could be used to regulate the unorganised film industry, noting that workers in such sectors are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. The AG suggested that the issue could be debated publicly.

The court highlighted the need for those in control of the industry to actively curb exploitation, emphasising that all citizens have a duty to uphold Constitutional principles. It noted that producers and directors are not merely responsible for creating commercially successful films, but must also ensure that their work aligns with constitutional values.

The court stressed the interdependence of all industry participants, such as producers, directors, artists and technicians, stating that regulations must consider the industry as a whole. It pointed out that each component is interconnected, and any exploitation affects the entire sector. The court underscored the fundamental duty to portray women appropriately and suggested that clear penalties could help deter violations.

The court also discussed the importance of expanding regulations to encompass all sectors across the state, including theatre and other performing arts. 

The bench emphasised that awareness campaigns are necessary to change societal attitudes, but stressed the importance of taking immediate action, backed by legal force, to ensure the rightful portrayal of women and prevent exploitation.