The Hindu: Kochi: Thursday, 8 August 2024.
Women’s panel, Women in
Cinema Collective oppose plea of producer. SIC submits that public have every
right to know the contents of the report since it will help improve the
conditions of the women in the film industry
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a writ petition challenging the State Information Commission’s (SIC) order directing the State government to make public the Justice K. Hema Committee report on women’s working conditions in the Malayalam film industry with limited redactions.
Justice V.C. Arun reserved the order for August 13 after conclusion of the hearing on a petition filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil.
Bona fide suspicious
The Kerala Women’s Commission and the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), which were impleaded in the case, opposed the plea of the producer and submitted that the report dealt with the issues faced by women working in the film field. If the report was not made public, no purpose would be served. The WCC submitted that the bona fide of the petitioner was highly suspicious.
The petitioner contended that the disclosure would violate fundamental rights and the privacy right of the witnesses who deposed before the committee. Revealing the contents of the report even with purported redactions would pose significant risks of identifying individuals who deposed under assurances of confidentiality. As the the film industry was interconnected, the disclosure of the contents could lead to the identification of witnesses or complainants, potentially exposing them to retaliation or further harassment.
Steps to protect privacy
Counsel for the SIC submitted that the public had every right to know the contents of the report since it would help improve the conditions of the women in the film industry. The counsel pointed out that the commission had already taken steps to protect the privacy of individuals by redacting sensitive information. The SIC had ordered to remove personal information, and names, and excluded all indications which might conclude a name from the report. The SIC’s order was a balancing act and it completely took care of Section 11 of the RTI Act.
The State government pleader submitted that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the order.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a writ petition challenging the State Information Commission’s (SIC) order directing the State government to make public the Justice K. Hema Committee report on women’s working conditions in the Malayalam film industry with limited redactions.
Justice V.C. Arun reserved the order for August 13 after conclusion of the hearing on a petition filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil.
Bona fide suspicious
The Kerala Women’s Commission and the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), which were impleaded in the case, opposed the plea of the producer and submitted that the report dealt with the issues faced by women working in the film field. If the report was not made public, no purpose would be served. The WCC submitted that the bona fide of the petitioner was highly suspicious.
The petitioner contended that the disclosure would violate fundamental rights and the privacy right of the witnesses who deposed before the committee. Revealing the contents of the report even with purported redactions would pose significant risks of identifying individuals who deposed under assurances of confidentiality. As the the film industry was interconnected, the disclosure of the contents could lead to the identification of witnesses or complainants, potentially exposing them to retaliation or further harassment.
Steps to protect privacy
Counsel for the SIC submitted that the public had every right to know the contents of the report since it would help improve the conditions of the women in the film industry. The counsel pointed out that the commission had already taken steps to protect the privacy of individuals by redacting sensitive information. The SIC had ordered to remove personal information, and names, and excluded all indications which might conclude a name from the report. The SIC’s order was a balancing act and it completely took care of Section 11 of the RTI Act.
The State government pleader submitted that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the order.
.JPG)
.JPG)
