Many are scared. The film industry is market-driven, and for most survivors, cinema is their only source of livelihood. Many have not completed their primary education and have no alternative career paths.
Published Mar 16, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Mar 17, 2025 | 1:06 PM
While new allegations against actors continue to surface on social media, cases will not be registered unless formal complaints are lodged.
Synopsis: Questions are raised over whether the Hema Committee report that laid bare the working conditions of women in Malayalam cinema would bring about a change in the industry.
Serious doubts have been raised over the possible outcome of the Justice K Hema Committee report after several women artistes, despite levelling allegations against their male colleagues in the industry, refused to lodge formal complaints or provide statements to investigators.
According to an investigator probing the case, the team would submit a report to the court saying further investigation would not be feasible.
“We repeatedly summoned the victims to testify, but they are unwilling. Many argue that they gave their statements to the Hema Committee six years ago, and the circumstances have since changed,” the officer, who did not wish to be named, told South First.
“They are no longer interested in pursuing the matter, especially since most incidents occurred many years ago. Our only option was to issue court notices to them, which we have done. However, no one has responded. We will wait until the end of this month before submitting a report to the court, stating that further investigation is not feasible,” the investigator added.
The officer also clarified that while new allegations against actors continued to surface on social media, cases would not be registered unless formal complaints were lodged.
“The cases against Siddique, Mukesh, and Ranjith, among others, were based on formal complaints. We have already filed chargesheets in nine cases and will complete the chargesheets for the remaining cases this month,” the officer added.
The three-member Committee, chaired by former Kerala High Court judge Justice K Hema, had veteran actor Sharada and retired IAS officer KB Vatsalakumari as its members.
The Committee was set up in July 2017 after the Women in Cinema Collective — an organisation formed after a young female actor was kidnapped and sexually assaulted in a moving car in Kochi on 17 February 2017.
Actor Dileep has been named the eighth accused in the case. The survivor revealed her identity in an Instagram post on 10 January 2022, and several actors, many of whom were remaining silent on the issue, shared her post in solidarity with the young woman.
The Hema Committee, which started functioning on 16 December 2017 and looked into the concerns of sexual harassment and gender discrimination in Malayalam cinema, submitted its report to the government on 31 December 2019.
However, no action was taken on the report. A redacted version of the 300-page report was made available to RTI applicants on 19 August 2022 after the intervention of the state Information Commission and the High Court.
Once publicised, the report shocked the nation and provided a glimpse of Malayalam cinema’s dark underbelly, as many others joined the #MeToo wave that followed.
The Hema Committee report dominated discussions in Kerala for over two months, leading to cases being registered against more than 40 individuals, including prominent figures like actors Mukesh, Siddique, and Jayasurya, as well as director Ranjith Balakrishnan.
However, not many were willing to fight a legal battle — and the wave started to ebb.
Questions are many: What happened to those who first dared to speak out? Where are the brave women who gave statements to the Hema Committee? Why are they now hesitant to cooperate with further investigation? After the initial media frenzy, has the fight for justice lost its momentum?
And most importantly, has the reported “power groups” in Malayalam cinema quelled the shattered voices before they became a collective scream?
Actor Maala Parvathi had deposed before the Committee before moving the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the proceedings the Special Investigation Team (SIT) has initiated based on her statement.
She contended that she was assured confidentiality and that her statement was not meant for further legal action.
“Many innocent lives have been ruined while those who committed these crimes continue to enjoy their privileges. The only real ‘revolution’ following the Hema Committee report is that many women lost their jobs,” Parvathi told South First about the report’s fallout.
“Even industries outside Malayalam cinema now hesitate to hire Malayali women technicians, including assistant directors and actors. The crisis is unimaginable,” she claimed.
In a Facebook post on 1 December 2024, Parvathi explained why she did not want legal action. She also mentioned about a “breach of trust” saying the Committee’s terms of reference had not mentioned legal action, but was meant to better the working conditions of women in Malayalam cinema.
“The goal should have been to make the industry safer for women, not just to put predators behind bars. When we gave our statements, we expected positive changes, but nothing happened. FIRs are even registered based on hearsay, which is not the right way to handle these issues,” she further told South First.
“Those willing to pursue legal action should have the right to do so. But at the bare minimum, survivors who trusted the committee deserve not to be harmed by this process,” she added.
A leading actor from the Malayalam film industry also expressed skepticism about the legal process.
“You know why the Hema Committee was formed. Even after eight years, the survivor in the actress assault case has not received justice. If a high-profile actress is still battling trauma, do you think ordinary women in the industry will come forward? Who will protect them? There are no guarantees for anything here,” she told South First, requesting anonymity.
Sajitha Madathil, actor and representative of the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), told South First that the organisation never demanded the formation of an SIT.
The government’s decision to constitute the SIT was driven by survivors who shared their experiences in the media and on social platforms, many of whom had not initially provided statements to the Hema Committee.
She clarified that while the SIT later took statements from the Hema Committee report for investigation, neither the WCC nor the survivors had sought this course of action.
“The Hema Committee was formed to study systemic issues within the industry, and we all provided statements with that purpose in mind, not to convert them into legal cases. If that was our intent, we could have done it years ago, at the time of the incidents,” she explained.
WCC’s primary goal, Madathil emphasised, was to prevent such incidents in the future and support the government’s efforts.
“The SIT’s approach is forcing them (the survivors) to relive their trauma by summoning them to places where the abuse occurred, which many cannot handle. The government’s decision to act swiftly by registering cases based on these statements was a response to public pressure rather than a well-considered move,” she said.
She also pointed out that the Hema Committee’s relevance has been augmented.
“What the committee reported is now clear to the public, nothing changes even after decades. The predators still hold power, and survivors live in fear. At the very least, they deserve to be left alone to live in peace,” Madathil opined.
Lawyer TB Mini has been leading the legal battles related to the Hema Committee report and representing the survivor in the kidnapping and assault case.
She told South First that the investigation would be stopped in a few cases but would proceed in others. “Even today, I was busy with one of the cases,” she said.
Mini has consistently criticised the government’s decision to form a committee instead of a commission. She pointed out that while a commission report must be tabled in the Assembly, a committee report was not bound to initiate mandatory legal action.
Chairperson of the Kerala Women’s Commission Advocate P Sathidevi stated that the commission has not received any detailed report on the closure of investigations.
“I understand from news reports that nearly 30 cases might be dropped due to the survivors’ reluctance to testify. The Women’s Commission has provided assistance to survivors at every stage and will look into the reasons preventing their cooperation with the investigation,” she told South First.
Supreme Court lawyer Advocate Babila Ummerkhan underscored the importance of statutory, material, and circumstantial evidence in legal proceedings.
“Without testifying before the SIT, how can the probe move forward? It will reach an impasse. The court may either order alternative measures or accept the police report stating that the investigation is not feasible due to a lack of cooperation and evidence. Testimonies are crucial in every case,” she explained to South First.
Filmmaker and writer Anjana George pointed out a different issue. When the Hema Committee report was released, the focus was not on identifying the abuser but rather on sensationalising the identity of the survivor, she told South First.
“We never questioned how ‘survivor-friendly’ the entire process was. The film industry is market-driven, and for most survivors, cinema is their only source of livelihood. Many have not completed their primary education and have no alternative career paths,” she pointed out.
“The allure of glamour also plays a crucial role, making it difficult for them to step away. Whether they give up due to pressure or other reasons, we may never know,” she said.
“I don’t want to blame WCC for not supporting survivors in testifying. WCC is a movement for a greater common good. We should appreciate how it has contributed to making society more gender sensitive,” she said when asked about the WCC.
“Actors like Parvathy Thiruvoth have made immense sacrifices in their careers for this cause, yet we continue to question and blame them. Now that the report is out, the responsibility lies with the system and the judiciary, not the WCC,” she further said.
George also highlighted Kerala’s deep-seated societal issues and provided a historical perspective.
“This is the land where our first heroine, PK Rosy, was humiliated and forced to flee due to societal mistreatment. The situation remains unchanged. The lack of a proper support system and society’s voyeuristic tendencies are the biggest hurdles. Kerala has witnessed many revolutions, but there is always hypocrisy lurking underneath all the claimed positives,” she added.
Rosy, nee PK Rajamma, was Malayalam cinema’s first female actor. Rosy, a Dalit, invited the wrath of upper-caste Hindus for portraying a Nair woman in Vigathakumaran in 1928. She fled Kerala after her house at Peyad in Thiruvananthapuram was set on fire. She settled in Nagercoil, now in Tamil Nadu.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
