Bar and Bench: Kerala: Tuesday, 20 August 2024.
The Court also assured the actress that the writ petition, if filed, will be heard today itself by a single-judge.
The Kerala High Court on
Monday dismissed an appeal filed by cine star Ranjini against an order of
single-judge allowing the release of Justice Hema Committee Report on working
conditions of women in the Malayalam film industry [Sasha Selvaraj @ Renjini v
State of Kerala and ors].
A Bench of Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu said that the actress should file a writ petition instead of an appeal.
The Court explained that an appeal against the single-judge order would not lie since the actress was not a party to the case in which the single judge order was passed. The single-judge order was in personem (against a particular person) and not in rem (on legal issues against the world at large), the Court pointed out.
"The single judge's judgment is a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem. We will give you liberty, you can file a separate writ petition," the Court said while dismissing the appeal.
The Court also assured the actress that the writ petition, if filed, will be heard today itself by a single-judge.
"The appeal is dismissed, you file a writ petition. You file the writ today itself and we will post it today, I will ask the registry to number it and post it at 3 pm before a single bench," the Bench said.
Notably, the single-judge order was passed on a petition by film producer Sajimon Parayil who had challenged the release of the report. Ranjini moved the Division Bench against the single-judge order in the matter.
The Justice K Hema Committee was established by the Kerala government in 2017 following a petition by the 'Women in Cinema Collective' to study the issues faced by women in the film industry.
Actress Ranjini was among those who gave a statement to the committee as part of this study.
The committee submitted its report to the government in 2019.
The State Information Commission (SIC) later allowed a plea under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) to publicly release portions of the report after redacting personal information.
This move was challenged by film producer Sajimon Parayil before the Kerala High Court. However, on August 13, Justice VG Arun (single judge of the High Court) dismissed the petition,
This order was challenged by Ranjini, who raised concerns that her right to privacy may be violated with the report's release since the task of redacting sensitive portions of the report was left solely to the discretion of an Information Officer.
In her plea, she highlighted that she had given her statement on assurances that confidentiality would be maintained.
She submitted that she had a legitimate expectation that she would be notified and heard before any part of the report that concerns her statements would be released.
She further contended that those affected by the report's release have been kept in the dark about which portions would be redacted prior to the report's publication.
"The State Information Commissioner ought not have directed the publication of the report without the affected parties including the appellant being heard," the appeal said.
She added that when the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution conflicts with the right to privacy under Article 21, the latter should take precedence due to the reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression.
Advocate Renjith B Marar, appearing for Ranjini, said that the actress should have been put to notice about the publication of the report and the same is a statutory mandate under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
"I was ensured of the confidentiality. I should be informed and put to notice according to the statute and the mandate under Section 11 of the RTI Act," he said.
"Do you want to protect your interest what do you want what is the relief that you seek? What is going to happen? Are they going to disclose your name?" the Bench asked.
"My right to privacy will be violated if the report is published before giving me a legitimate opportunity to be heard," Marar replied.
However, the Court said that an appeal will not lie by a third party against the single-judge decision and directed the actress to file a writ petition.
The Court also assured the actress that the writ petition, if filed, will be heard today itself by a single-judge.
A Bench of Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu said that the actress should file a writ petition instead of an appeal.
The Court explained that an appeal against the single-judge order would not lie since the actress was not a party to the case in which the single judge order was passed. The single-judge order was in personem (against a particular person) and not in rem (on legal issues against the world at large), the Court pointed out.
"The single judge's judgment is a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem. We will give you liberty, you can file a separate writ petition," the Court said while dismissing the appeal.
The Court also assured the actress that the writ petition, if filed, will be heard today itself by a single-judge.
"The appeal is dismissed, you file a writ petition. You file the writ today itself and we will post it today, I will ask the registry to number it and post it at 3 pm before a single bench," the Bench said.
Notably, the single-judge order was passed on a petition by film producer Sajimon Parayil who had challenged the release of the report. Ranjini moved the Division Bench against the single-judge order in the matter.
The Justice K Hema Committee was established by the Kerala government in 2017 following a petition by the 'Women in Cinema Collective' to study the issues faced by women in the film industry.
Actress Ranjini was among those who gave a statement to the committee as part of this study.
The committee submitted its report to the government in 2019.
The State Information Commission (SIC) later allowed a plea under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) to publicly release portions of the report after redacting personal information.
This move was challenged by film producer Sajimon Parayil before the Kerala High Court. However, on August 13, Justice VG Arun (single judge of the High Court) dismissed the petition,
This order was challenged by Ranjini, who raised concerns that her right to privacy may be violated with the report's release since the task of redacting sensitive portions of the report was left solely to the discretion of an Information Officer.
In her plea, she highlighted that she had given her statement on assurances that confidentiality would be maintained.
She submitted that she had a legitimate expectation that she would be notified and heard before any part of the report that concerns her statements would be released.
She further contended that those affected by the report's release have been kept in the dark about which portions would be redacted prior to the report's publication.
"The State Information Commissioner ought not have directed the publication of the report without the affected parties including the appellant being heard," the appeal said.
She added that when the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution conflicts with the right to privacy under Article 21, the latter should take precedence due to the reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression.
Advocate Renjith B Marar, appearing for Ranjini, said that the actress should have been put to notice about the publication of the report and the same is a statutory mandate under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
"I was ensured of the confidentiality. I should be informed and put to notice according to the statute and the mandate under Section 11 of the RTI Act," he said.
"Do you want to protect your interest what do you want what is the relief that you seek? What is going to happen? Are they going to disclose your name?" the Bench asked.
"My right to privacy will be violated if the report is published before giving me a legitimate opportunity to be heard," Marar replied.
However, the Court said that an appeal will not lie by a third party against the single-judge decision and directed the actress to file a writ petition.
.JPG)
.JPG)
