Skip to main content

🛑 Kerala SIT Closes All 35 Sexual Harassment Cases in Malayalam Film Industry


Victims chose not to testify; Kerala High Court expresses concern over systemic barriers

In a troubling update on the long-standing issue of workplace sexual harassment in the Malayalam film industry, the Kerala High Court was informed on June 26, 2025, that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted to probe allegations of sexual harassment had closed all 35 cases it had registered. The closure was attributed to the unwillingness of victims to come forward and give formal statements, despite repeated assurances of support and confidentiality from the State.

The Context: Hema Committee and the SIT

The SIT was formed as a direct response to findings from the Justice K. Hema Committee Report, which was commissioned by the Kerala Government in 2017 following a representation by the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC). The WCC—a group of female professionals from the Malayalam film industry—had raised serious concerns about widespread sexual harassment, lack of grievance redressal mechanisms, and power asymmetries in the workplace.

The Hema Committee, led by retired High Court judge Justice K. Hema, conducted extensive consultations with women working in the industry. Its report, publicly released in a redacted form in August 2024, painted a disturbing picture of normalized sexual exploitation, systemic silence, and institutional apathy in the industry.

Following the revelations, a Special Investigation Team was set up to pursue criminal investigation in instances where cognizable offences were indicated. Simultaneously, a Special Bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and C.S. Sudha, was constituted to monitor judicial proceedings related to the fallout of the report.

Closure of Cases: Lack of Victim Testimony

At the recent hearing in the case titled Navas A @ Paichira Navas v. State of Kerala and connected matters, the State informed the Court that all 35 cases initiated by the SIT had to be closed. The reason cited was that none of the alleged victims were willing to record statements or pursue prosecution, despite being offered support mechanisms by the State.

Justice Nambiar responded with a telling remark: “We do not want to compel anyone either.”

The bench acknowledged the difficult position of victims, many of whom face entrenched patriarchal structures, social stigma, and career risks. The comment underlines a judicial recognition of trauma-informed justice, where consent and willingness of the victim take precedence over procedural enforcement.

Legal Reform Underway: HC Calls for More Than POSH Copy-Paste

The High Court also inquired about the status of the proposed legislation to address systemic gender-based issues in the Malayalam film industry. Kerala Advocate General Gopalakrishna Kurup assured the Bench that a draft law was in the works, and would be shaped in consultation with stakeholders at a Film Conclave scheduled for August 2025.

Importantly, the Bench made it clear that any such legislation should not simply mirror the existing POSH Act (Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013), but should instead be tailored to reflect the unique challenges of the entertainment industry, including freelance labour, informal hierarchies, and the absence of structured employer-employee relationships.

Commentary: A Justice System at Crossroads

The mass closure of all cases despite the presence of a judicially monitored SIT reflects deep structural barriers to justice in cases of sexual harassment, especially in powerful, male-dominated industries like cinema. While victim autonomy must be respected, the silence also underscores a fear of retaliation, lack of trust in institutions, and social isolation faced by survivors.

The proposed legislation will be a test of the State’s commitment to enabling safe and equitable workspaces in the entertainment sector. It must take into account the voices of artists, technicians, and workers who function in largely unregulated, informal ecosystems—beyond the traditional employer-employee matrix envisaged under existing laws.

Key Takeaways:

  • All 35 SIT cases based on the Hema Report were closed due to lack of victim cooperation.

  • Justice Nambiar emphasized non-coercion: “We do not want to compel anyone either.”

  • The High Court is monitoring the drafting of a new law specifically for the film industry.

  • The Court insists the law must go beyond the POSH Act and address industry-specific challenges.

  • Victim silence points to larger systemic issues—not merely lack of evidence but fear, stigma, and loss of livelihood.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mandatory Injunction Not Automatic: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Relief Under Section 39 of Specific Relief Act

In a significant clarification on the scope of mandatory injunctions, the Supreme Court in Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi has held that the grant of a mandatory injunction under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , is not a matter of right but one of judicial discretion , to be exercised only when a legally enforceable obligation has been clearly breached . ⚖️ Breach Must Be Specific and Proven The Court emphasized that a mandatory injunction , which compels a party to perform a specific act, can be granted only when there is a demonstrable breach of an obligation that is legally binding . "The breach of obligation and performance and compulsion to perform certain acts in relation to such obligation must be specifically established before a mandatory injunction can be granted," the Bench observed. This reinforces that the courts must be satisfied not just about the existence of a duty or obligation, but also th...
Post a Comment
Read more

When Judicial Orders Meet Dishonesty: The Supreme Court's Critical Distinction on Disciplinary Action Against Judges

In a significant observation that challenges long-established judicial doctrine, the Supreme Court of India has articulated a nuanced position on the liability of judges for their judicial orders. While hearing a writ petition filed by a District Judge from Madhya Pradesh who challenged his suspension by the High Court, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant raised a pivotal question: if a judicial order is passed based on dishonest or extraneous considerations rather than mere judicial error , why cannot disciplinary action be initiated? This observation marks an important evolution in the jurisprudence surrounding judicial immunity and disciplinary responsibility. ​ The Case: Factual Background The Supreme Court bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi, examined the suspension of the District Judge immediately before his retirement. Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, representing the petitioner, contended that his client possessed an exemplary...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court Reaffirms "Fraud Unravels Everything" Principle in Landmark Vishnu Vardhan Case

Overview The Supreme Court of India in Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. made a definitive pronouncement on the relationship between fraud and the doctrine of merger. The three-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan held that if a High Court decision upheld by the Supreme Court was obtained through fraud, an aggrieved party may file a civil appeal against the High Court's order rather than seeking review of the Supreme Court's judgment . Legal Context and Background The dispute centered around a parcel of land in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, jointly purchased in 1997 by three individuals: Vishnu Vardhan (appellant), Reddy Veeranna, and T. Sudhakar . The land was subsequently acquired by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) in 2005, forming part of Sector 18, NOIDA . The trio initially pursued joint litigation to protect their interests in the land. However, Reddy allegedly emb...
Post a Comment
Read more