By Adv C K George
Thrissur, Aug 25 (IVC) Going through the statements of the Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and his other cabinet ministers, it could rightly be observed that the delay for the publication of Justice K Hema Committee report on the plight of women in the Malayalam film industry was with the intention of protecting certain guilty persons.
The controversial report was submitted to the Chief minister on December 31, 2019 and it was partly published on August 19, 2024 after a long period of five years and eight months.
It was not justifiable at all that the delay in the publication of Hema Committee report caused as it contained the privacy of certain cine stars and hence it could not be published in full. The controversial letter dated 19-02-2020 was given to the Chief Minister objection to publishing the report in full, after one month and 20 days after submitting the report.
A pertinent question arose here that why the Justice did not submit the objection letter while submitting the report whi
As the controversial letter of the Justice was the villain of the piece in the process of publishing the report, why the Justice did not give to the Chief Minister along with the report is a serious question. It took for one and 20-for the justice to give a letter objecting the publication of the report in full.
The government was at liberty to publish the report before getting the letter from Hema , if the government really wanted to protect the victims of the Malayalam film industry. Hence it was amply clear from the acts of the Government that it had an intention of protecting the guilty in the industry as Hema’s report published in full it would tarnish the image certain stars in the industry. The fabricated delay in the publication of the report was to protect the Culprits that is what the criticism of the Opposition Leder V D Satheesan.
The official sources have repeatedly stated that the Justice Hema Committee’s report was not binding. If the report was not binding, how the controversial letter of the producer of the report would be binding. The appropriate authorities are certainly bound to answer this question.
The clarification of the Government that Hema’s letter delayed the publication of the report was not justifiable. There were unconfirmed reports that Justice letter dated 19-02-2020 was the result of a well-hatched conspiracy with a view to protecting the certain persons in the industry.
When the report was submitted by the Justice Hema, it is a public document and the justice had no role at all and it was not necessarily to give heed to her letter.
The Government had taken all possible steps to delay the publication of the report referring it to the Chief of the Police Department and State information Commission. The State Information is not a judicial authority and it was not the appropriate authority to decide on the report. Instead, it should have referred to the Advocate General for comments.
It was evident from the above that the Justice had no objection ,in the initial stage, in publishing the report in full. The letter was the hindsight. Now the arose here is whether the Government could go ahead with revelation in the report with the criminal proceedings against the guilty persons in the industry .
According to the legal experts here, the government was empowered to initiate criminal proceedings against the guilty without individual complaints from the victims. It is empowered to take action against the guilty persons who committed cognizant offence when the appropriate authority came to know of it, they said.
The insistence of the Government that the victims should file individual complaints for action was not justifiable. It would be tantamount to a tempest in the day of whirlwind (Edivettavane Paambukadikkunna Anubhavm) and it was the bourgeois attitude. Even though the Government had referred the report to State Information Commission. It had not abided by the directives of the Commission.
The Commission had directed the appropriate authority to release the report , deleting the paragraphs from 165 to 196. But at the same time, the report was published ,deleting pages 49 to 53, which the Commission had not asked to delete. On the contrary, the 98 the paragraph of the page no 48 was published which the Commission had directed not to publish.
It would be observed from above clearly, that the contents of the report which the had directed not to publish, had been published. The government had the intention of protecting the guilty in the Malayalam film industry by not publishing the report on time on flimsy and flippant grounds.
