/>

Actor Ranjini moves HC against order to release Hema Committee report

A Single Judge directing the disclosure of substantial portions of the K. Hema Committee Report on women’s working conditions in the film industry

Published - August 16, 2024 07:50 pm IST - KOCHI

Actress Ranjini has moved the Kerala High Court challenging the order of the single judge directing the disclosure of substantial portions of the K. Hema Committee Report on women’s working conditions in the film industry.

She contended that the ordered disclosure violated her fundamental right to privacy and breached the confidentiality promised to witnesses, including her, who had deposed before the panel.

The widespread disclosure of the report, even with purported redactions as ordered by the State Information Commissioner, argued her counsel Renjith B. Marar, posed significant risks of identifying individuals who provided testimonies under assurances of confidentiality. The report, which was submitted in 2019, has remained confidential. Given the interconnected nature of the film industry, the seemingly innocuous details that would come out, could lead to the identification of witnesses or complainants and potentially expose them to retaliation or further harassment, she apprehended.

The confidential nature of the report was pivotal in maintaining the integrity of the investigation and safeguarding participants and thus served a critical public interest in fostering trust in government inquiries and ensuring honest reporting of workplace issues, she argued.

The unilateral decision to disclose the report without prior consultation violated the principles of natural justice, and denied the affected parties, including stakeholders in the film industry, the opportunity to respond to potential allegations or criticisms that could unjustly damage their reputations and livelihoods, she contended.

Such disclosures, besides leading to misinterpretation also disregard statutory provisions like Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, which mandates confidentiality in sexual harassment inquiries. The Single Judge’s order lacked proportionality and failed to uphold the delicate balance between transparency and the protection of individual rights and public interest, she argued.

The case will be considered on Monday.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.