Amid a growing controversy over actor Maala Parvathi’s criticism of the Hema Committee and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Kerala government to investigate sexual assault cases, Parvathi shared a detailed clarification post on Facebook.

In a post titled, clarifications on certain matters, she described trusting the committee as a mistake and asserted that her appearance before the committee was never intended to file a complaint or accuse anyone.

She pointed out that the committee had not outlined any intention to pursue legal action or identify perpetrators. ''If such intentions had been made clear, I would not have appeared before the committee,'' Parvathi emphasised.

"Not everything can be categorised as right or wrong. I believe there is value in not causing pain to those we respect or hold dear. Society may judge me differently for this stance. I may not belong among those fighting grand battles or participating in larger struggles. Let this be my failing," she wrote, adding that her petition would not obstruct others from proceeding with their complaints.

On Friday, Parvathi moved the Supreme Court, alleging that the SIT targeted women who had recorded their statements before the Hema Committee. She also highlighted the Terms of Reference of the committee in her post, explaining that she had spoken in detail about her experiences, observations, potential dangers, and solutions for issues in the cinema industry.

"I provided these details based on assurances that no one’s names or details would be revealed. I completely trusted the three committee members. Had I known this would later serve as a document for legal proceedings, I would not have spoken in such detail. I understood this to be a study aimed at resolving issues in the cinema industry," she stated.

Parvathi expressed concern over references to POCSO cases in the committee’s report, noting that such serious matters naturally lead to legal proceedings when presented before the government or courts. However, she stressed that individuals who had shared their experiences should have the option to either pursue legal action or opt-out if uninterested.

She revealed that when approached by the SIT, she had explicitly clarified through written and video statements her lack of interest in pursuing the case. She claimed that the SIT assured her they would not proceed if she was unwilling. However, she expressed distress over learning that individuals, who were not directly connected to the case, were being summoned as witnesses based on her statements.