Published Dec 19, 2024 | 3:06 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 19, 2024 | 3:06 PM
Kerala High Court. (iStock)
In a significant development concerning complaints of sexual harassment in the Malayalam film industry, the Kerala High Court on Thursday, 19 December, has permitted individuals who did not testify before the Justice Hema Committee to file their grievances.
These complaints must be submitted to the nodal officer by 31 January 2025.
The court clarified that the nodal officer’s jurisdiction now extends to accepting grievances from anyone in the film industry, irrespective of whether they appeared before the Hema Committee.
The nodal officer, G Poonguzhali IPS, appointed as AIG Coastal Security, will forward all complaints to the SIT for further inquiry.
The ruling came in response to a plea from the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC). Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the WCC, argued for the inclusion of complaints from individuals who did not participate in the Hema Committee proceedings.
As reported by the Live Law, the high court stated, “While the nodal officer has been nominated pursuant to our earlier order and sufficient publicity to the name and details of the said nodal officer is given so that persons who feel threatened, intimidated during the investigation on their complaints submitted before SIT can approach before the SIT with such complaints.”
“It would be desirable to extend the jurisdiction of nodal officer to cover even those grievances that will be raised by those persons in the film industry who have not approached the Hema Committee so that any such person can submit individual grievances with regard to any harassment/abuse faced by them to the nodal officer for forwarding to SIT for investigation of the same. We see no impediment to expanding the jurisdiction of nodal officer for the above purpose.”
The order further reads, “We accordingly direct that the nodal officer shall on receipt of any such complaint from persons in the film industry, promptly forward the same to SIT for investigation by ensuring confidentiality.”
Earlier, on 27 November, the court directed the SIT to nominate a nodal officer to address witness intimidation concerns.
During Thursday’s hearing, the court reiterated that the investigation cannot continue indefinitely and set 31 January as the deadline.
While Advocate Sandhya Raju requested an extension, citing fear among potential complainants, the court held firm on the deadline but assured that individuals could approach the police at any time after the deadline.
The court reportedly noted orally, “This window is open only for the purposes of this. Suppose you have a complaint of harassment, you can always go to the police station… …the only advantage you get through this window is that you get confidentiality, whereas when you go to normal SHO, your name will come as complainant… why would a person who is already aggrieved wait for a period beyond what the Court is permitting…You already have a platform….there is a certain protection that we can ensure…it will be from SIT to Court and no interference in between. If that does not inspire the confidence of those persons, then nothing will.”
Further hearings on the matter are scheduled post-vacation.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Sreelakshmi Soman)
