Verdictum: Kerala: Saturday, 17 August 2024.
The Kerala High Court
dismissed a writ petition preferred against the order of the State Information
Commission directing the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to provide the
information of Justice K. Hema Committee Report regarding environment for women
employed in the Malayalam film industry.
The writ petition was filed by a 57-year-old man named Sajimon Parayil challenging the said order.
A Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun said, “The challenge on the premise that the procedure under Section 11 is not followed is to be discarded, since the interests of third parties is not being jeopardized by issuing redacted copies of the report. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is dismissed.”
Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor appeared for the petitioner while Advocates M. Ajay, Deepa Narayanan, N. Krishna Prasad, Parvarthy Menon, Binoy Vasudevan, A.K. Preetha, and T.R.S Kumar appeared for the respondents.
In this case, an organisation called the “Women in Cinema Collective” (WCC), was formed with the prime objective of fighting injustice and the misogynistic trends in the film industry. After its formation, certain untoward incidents prompted the WCC to seek intervention of the Government to ensure a safe environment for women employed in the Malayalam film industry. Acting on the request, the Government constituted a three-member expert committee headed by Justice K. Hema (Retd) to study and make recommendations for solving the issues arising out of gender discrimination in Malayalam Cinema. The Justice Hema Committee, after conducting extensive study, including personal interaction with women employees who had faced gender discrimination and harassment, submitted its report to the Government in 2019.
Thereafter, in 2020, an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI (Right to Information) Act was submitted for obtaining a copy of the report. The SPIO rejected the application and the rejection was affirmed in appeal vide an order of the State Information Commission. Much later, in February 2024, an application was submitted seeking access to the permissible parts of the Justice Hema Committee report, excluding those which cannot be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. However, the SPIO denied the information and hence, an appeal was filed before the Commission. The appeal was considered along with similar appeals and allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “The vociferous request by the members of the Women in Cinema Collective, at whose request the Justice Hema Committee was constituted and the Women's Commission, the body constituted to uphold women's rights, in support of Ext.P3 itself, is an indication of the public interest involved.”
The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Yashwant Sinha and others v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another [(2019) 6 SCC 1], in which it was held that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act manifest legal revolution that has been introduced in that, none of the exemptions declared under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 can stand in the way of the access to information, if the public interest in disclosure overshadows the harm to the protected interest.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and extended the dates mentioned in the order by one week.
Cause Title- Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:62132)
(Click here to download theJudgment)
The writ petition was filed by a 57-year-old man named Sajimon Parayil challenging the said order.
A Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun said, “The challenge on the premise that the procedure under Section 11 is not followed is to be discarded, since the interests of third parties is not being jeopardized by issuing redacted copies of the report. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition is dismissed.”
Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor appeared for the petitioner while Advocates M. Ajay, Deepa Narayanan, N. Krishna Prasad, Parvarthy Menon, Binoy Vasudevan, A.K. Preetha, and T.R.S Kumar appeared for the respondents.
In this case, an organisation called the “Women in Cinema Collective” (WCC), was formed with the prime objective of fighting injustice and the misogynistic trends in the film industry. After its formation, certain untoward incidents prompted the WCC to seek intervention of the Government to ensure a safe environment for women employed in the Malayalam film industry. Acting on the request, the Government constituted a three-member expert committee headed by Justice K. Hema (Retd) to study and make recommendations for solving the issues arising out of gender discrimination in Malayalam Cinema. The Justice Hema Committee, after conducting extensive study, including personal interaction with women employees who had faced gender discrimination and harassment, submitted its report to the Government in 2019.
Thereafter, in 2020, an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI (Right to Information) Act was submitted for obtaining a copy of the report. The SPIO rejected the application and the rejection was affirmed in appeal vide an order of the State Information Commission. Much later, in February 2024, an application was submitted seeking access to the permissible parts of the Justice Hema Committee report, excluding those which cannot be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. However, the SPIO denied the information and hence, an appeal was filed before the Commission. The appeal was considered along with similar appeals and allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “The vociferous request by the members of the Women in Cinema Collective, at whose request the Justice Hema Committee was constituted and the Women's Commission, the body constituted to uphold women's rights, in support of Ext.P3 itself, is an indication of the public interest involved.”
The Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Yashwant Sinha and others v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another [(2019) 6 SCC 1], in which it was held that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act manifest legal revolution that has been introduced in that, none of the exemptions declared under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 can stand in the way of the access to information, if the public interest in disclosure overshadows the harm to the protected interest.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and extended the dates mentioned in the order by one week.
Cause Title- Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:62132)
(Click here to download theJudgment)
.JPG)
.JPG)
