Hema Committee: Registering FIRs without evidence or witness statements not tenable, says Supreme Court

New Delhi: While lauding the women who came forward to file complaints of sexual abuse against people in the Malayalam film industry, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that investigating agencies must also respect women choosing to stay silent.

The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment in three Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging the Kerala High Court's October 2024 order directing the registration of FIRs based on witness statements given to the Justice Hema Committee regarding abuse in the Malayalam film industry. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Sajay Karol, announced that the verdict will be delivered on January 27. The Supreme Court bench noted that registering FIRs without supporting evidence or witness statements would not be tenable. Justice Vikram Nath remarked that while crimes must be registered if reported, proactive measures by the State should not lead to baseless FIRs.

The Kerala High Court, in its October 14, 2024 order, directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to register FIRs under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 after it found that statements made to the Justice Hema Committee were cognisable offences, warranting police action.

The SLPs were filed by Malayalam film producer Sajimon Parayil, a woman actor who testified before the committee and another actor. They argue that the High Court’s directive leads to unnecessary harassment and violates the petitioners’ rights.

Senior Advocate R Basant, representing Sajimon Parayil, questioned the directive to register FIRs preemptively, stating that the orders could lead to arbitrary actions. Justice Vikram Nath questioned Parayil's locus standi, asking how he was affected by the directive.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing two petitioners who testified before the Justice Hema Committee, argued that the testimonies were given for academic purposes and not to pursue criminal investigations. He stated that the witnesses were now being harassed by the police.

Advocate Parvathi Menon, representing the Kerala Women’s Commission, opposed the petitions, stating that the petitioners lacked standing and attempted to obstruct due process. She argued that the High Court’s monitoring of the SIT ensures that the concerns of the witnesses are addressed.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayan, representing the Women in Cinema Collective, supported the State of Kerala’s arguments. He emphasised the power dynamics in the Malayalam film industry and the necessity of the High Court’s intervention to address the issue.

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the State, clarified that the SIT was formed to investigate allegations raised in the Justice Hema Committee Report. He acknowledged the delay in acting on the report, which was kept confidential for five years.   
(With inputs from LiveLaw.)