‘Though the Hema Committee report addresses various issues faced by women in the vernacular films, the issues transcend these boundaries’
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
The Justice K. Hema Committee report, which was released by the Kerala government on August 19, 2024, has ignited a debate on the issues faced by women in Malayalam film industry. The committee, which was formed in 2017, had submitted its report to the government in 2019. A redacted version of the report has now been put up in the public domain. Though it addresses the issues faced by women in the vernacular films, the issues transcend these boundaries.
Editorial | Catalyst for change: On the Hema Committee report and Malayalam film industry
Broadly, the report deals with two categories of issues. The first is the sexual exploitation of and assault against women in cinema. The report says that women are often required to exchange sexual favours for opportunities and those women who refuse to ‘co-operate’ are sidelined from the industry at the instance of powerful men. The second is discriminatory practices against women and a lack of even basic facilities. The report has facilitated a long overdue discussion on the lack of gender equality for women at the workplace. The brutal incident of the rape and murder of a doctor at a hospital in Kolkata also reinforces the need for this conversation.
Culture of assault
The concerns raised in the Hema Committee report are disturbing, yet are not surprising. They are an extension of the problems women face in a conservative, patriarchal society such as ours. Women are burdened by stereotypes and expectations about how they should behave. This is why it is problematic to consider instances of sexual assault on women as isolated. Viewed this way, rape must not be considered only as a crime committed by a bad man but as a culmination too of the social practices which deem the consent of women to be practically irrelevant. A rigid individualistic approach to sexual assault often distracts attention from this reality. Ranging from what to wear and what friends to have, individual choice is too often stolen from women. Rape is the crudest manifestation of this approach — not considering women as persons of autonomy and dignity. The normalisation of objectification and gender stereotypes has a central role in perpetuating sexual assault against women. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 31,516 cases of rape are reported in 2022 in India — a reported rape in every 16 minutes. Workplace harassment is another reflection of this culture of assault.
In the context of workplace assault, in Vishaka and Ors vs State Of Rajasthan and Ors (1997), a writ petition was filed to enforce the rights of working women against sexual harassment. A series of guidelines was prescribed by the Supreme Court of India — a unique kind of judicial legislation — to prevent workplace harassment. These included duties on the employer to prevent assault as well as the constitution of a complaint redress mechanism for aggrieved persons.
It took more than 16 years thereafter for the legislature to enact The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. A notable feature of the legislation is that it provides for the constitution of an internal complaints committee (ICC) which can be approached by the aggrieved woman. The definition of ‘workplace’ in section 2(o) of the Act is broad enough to take in the film industry as well.
The Justice Hema Committee report has however indicated that the ICC is not suitable for women in the film industry. It is argued that there is a likelihood of the abuser or the employer influencing ICC members. The committee, therefore, pleads for an independent forum constituted by the government to deal with the problems faced by women in cinema.
What the Hema Committee report says about the Malayalam film industry
However, this is a problem that any ICC faces and is not unique to the industry. While additional safeguards of accountability might help alleviate the problem, the suggestion to completely overlook the complaints redress mechanism formulated by a parliamentary legislation seems unwise.
Registration of crimes
Many have questioned the lack of a registration of crimes pursuant to the committee report. They ask why an investigation is not initiated and why the accused cannot be brought to justice. The concern is sensible. The report is a modified version which redacted the names of survivors and the culprits. Masking the names of survivors is done in recognition of the principle of survivor anonymity, a well-accepted norm in criminal jurisprudence on sexual assault. Anonymity will remain intact during the investigation and prosecution as well.
In Nipun Saxena vs Union Of India (2018), the Supreme Court explained the importance of penalisation of the disclosure of the name and the identity of the survivors of sexual offences as mandated in Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, which is now reiterated in Sections 72 and 73 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Since the provisions are substantially the same, the ratio of the judgment in Nipun Saxena would govern the field. In the judgment, the Court said that the object of the provision is to protect survivors from hostile discrimination and future harassment. This being the law of the land, the Kerala government must take a proactive role in the matter after sensitising itself in the matter.
The right to privacy is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution (Puttaswamy, 2017). The statements were given by several victims in the belief that this anonymity will be maintained. The right to decide whether to pursue a criminal case does lie with the victim. It is true that in our criminal justice system, the state initiates prosecution against the accused, arguing and conducting the case on behalf of the victim. However, even if the state investigates the crime, it becomes quite difficult to prove a crime without the cooperation of the victim.
Why survivors are often reluctant to pursue complaints in the case of sexual assault is important for us to recognise. A society which looks at survivors of sexual assault, with misguided empathy and disgust, instead of support and trust, probably has no moral standing to demand that the survivor must necessarily launch the complaint. We all share collective responsibility for manufacturing this status quo. Moreover, trials in sexual assault cases take years to complete, which are attributable to the high degree of judicial pendency in our country. Bear in mind that the Hema Committee was formed after the sexual assault allegation against a leading Malayalam cinema actor, the trial of which is not yet completed. Survivors also fear potential retaliation from the abuser and others, in terms of refusal to give them work, and being branded as ‘problem-makers.’
Structural reforms
The accusations in 2017 against Harvey Weinstein, the American film producer, had eventually led to the #MeToo movement which received global attention. The findings in the Hema Committee report must pave the way for structural reforms, for which the government must take an effective lead. The difficulties faced by women in the industry, particularly those in the lower strata as opposed to the lead actresses deserve acknowledgment. From the lack of adequate sanitation facilities to hostile bias, every issue needs comprehensive study and resolution. More importantly, the report will accelerate the Indian woman’s struggle against workplace discrimination by equipping her with an emboldened awareness.
Kaleeswaram Raj is a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India. Thulasi K. Raj is a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India