Live Law: Kerala: Wednesday, 7 August 2024.
Malayalam film producer,
Sajimon Parayil submitted before the Kerala High Court that there is no public
interest involved in disclosing the contents of the Justice Hema Commission
Report.
The Justice K. Hema Committee was established in 2017, and tasked with studying and suggesting solutions for issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry.
Justice V G Arun was hearing a plea challenging the order of the State Information Commissioner to disclose the Hema Commission Report after redacting portions which affected the privacy of persons who gave testimonies to the Commission and other connected persons. The Court granted a stay on 24 July 2024 on the order of the State Information Commissioner directing to make the Justice Hema Commission Report public.
Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Report was submitted before the Chief Minister in the year 2019. He stated that several applications were filed under the Right To Information Act for disclosure of the report. It was stated that the State Information Commission (SIC) denied the disclosure of the report vide an order in October 2020. However, it was stated that the SIC passed a new order in July 2024 to publish the relevant portions of the Report when there is no change in circumstances.
The petitioner further argued that there is no public interest involved in disclosing the report now after a span of many years. It was stated that actions based on the report were already taken. It was stated that the Report was handed over to the Chief Minister and the State has already constituted a committee to look into the Report and to take action. It was argued that the Government has already taken action to enforce the report by constituting a committee and no further public interest will be achieved by publication of the Report.
The petitioner went on to argue that publication of the report would only lead to unnecessary media discussion and no larger public interest would be served. It was said, “The report is not in cold storage. That is a misconception. That's a wrong news propaganda by these applicants to sensationalize these things”.
It was argued that the State Information Commission (SIC) granted discretionary powers to the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to determine which portions of the report should be redacted and which could be made public. It was stated that there is no statutory provision that permits of vesting such discretionary powers with the SPIO without any restrictions or guidelines.
Sections 8 and 9 deal with exemption for disclosure of certain information under the RTI Act. The petitioner argued that the information in the Report is covered under the exemption provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
It was argued that the RTI Act does not provide an absolute right for disclosure of information and there are exemptions provided under the Act itself. He referred to Section 8 (1) (j) to state that information affecting personal privacy cannot be disclosed when such information does not relate to public activity or interest.
The petitioner argued that the respondents had not explained how or in what way the publication of the report serves the public interest.
The petitioner also stated that disclosure of information would infringe on the privacy of several individuals in the film industry. It was also argued that publishing the report would constitute a breach of confidentiality for the witnesses who provided testimony in the report. It was thus stated that publication of the report would cause harassment and further victimize the women who gave their statements for the Report.
The hearing will continue tomorrow.
The Justice K. Hema Committee was established in 2017, and tasked with studying and suggesting solutions for issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry.
Justice V G Arun was hearing a plea challenging the order of the State Information Commissioner to disclose the Hema Commission Report after redacting portions which affected the privacy of persons who gave testimonies to the Commission and other connected persons. The Court granted a stay on 24 July 2024 on the order of the State Information Commissioner directing to make the Justice Hema Commission Report public.
Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Report was submitted before the Chief Minister in the year 2019. He stated that several applications were filed under the Right To Information Act for disclosure of the report. It was stated that the State Information Commission (SIC) denied the disclosure of the report vide an order in October 2020. However, it was stated that the SIC passed a new order in July 2024 to publish the relevant portions of the Report when there is no change in circumstances.
The petitioner further argued that there is no public interest involved in disclosing the report now after a span of many years. It was stated that actions based on the report were already taken. It was stated that the Report was handed over to the Chief Minister and the State has already constituted a committee to look into the Report and to take action. It was argued that the Government has already taken action to enforce the report by constituting a committee and no further public interest will be achieved by publication of the Report.
The petitioner went on to argue that publication of the report would only lead to unnecessary media discussion and no larger public interest would be served. It was said, “The report is not in cold storage. That is a misconception. That's a wrong news propaganda by these applicants to sensationalize these things”.
It was argued that the State Information Commission (SIC) granted discretionary powers to the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to determine which portions of the report should be redacted and which could be made public. It was stated that there is no statutory provision that permits of vesting such discretionary powers with the SPIO without any restrictions or guidelines.
Sections 8 and 9 deal with exemption for disclosure of certain information under the RTI Act. The petitioner argued that the information in the Report is covered under the exemption provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
It was argued that the RTI Act does not provide an absolute right for disclosure of information and there are exemptions provided under the Act itself. He referred to Section 8 (1) (j) to state that information affecting personal privacy cannot be disclosed when such information does not relate to public activity or interest.
The petitioner argued that the respondents had not explained how or in what way the publication of the report serves the public interest.
The petitioner also stated that disclosure of information would infringe on the privacy of several individuals in the film industry. It was also argued that publishing the report would constitute a breach of confidentiality for the witnesses who provided testimony in the report. It was thus stated that publication of the report would cause harassment and further victimize the women who gave their statements for the Report.
The hearing will continue tomorrow.
.JPG)
.JPG)
