Why The Hema Committee Report Has Hit A Legal Dead-End In Mollywood’s #MeToo Investigations

Back in August, in a report that did not hide its pessimism, we had said the Hema Committee report had opened a can of worms. Sadly, the worms would be put back in another can to fester further. In around four months, what we said may be coming true. Sadly, at that. 

It is not a moment to claim that what we pointed out then is turning out as predicted. Instead, it may be an occasion to ponder why things, despite change, remain the same.  

Anyway, the latest turn of events in the chequered Hema Committee saga is courtesy of Malayalam actress Mala Parvathy, who has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court’s order to register First Information Reports (FIR) based on statements recorded by the Hema Committee.

Mala Parvathy was among several actors, actresses, and film personalities who testified before the Hema Committee, formed after the horrific sexual assault of a prominent actress in the film industry in 2017. The committee comprised former Kerala High Court judge Justice Hema, veteran actor Sharada, and ex-bureaucrat KB Valsalakumari.

The report, submitted in 2019, gathered dust for a long time, and only a bunch of Right to Information (RTI) applications finally pushed the government to make the panel's report public in August this year.

As things stand, the report was diluted as the Kerala government chose to redact 55 pages from the 295-page report, withholding the identities of survivors and the accused. In the aftermath of the committee's report, there was a flurry of action and allegations with many popular film names coming under a cloud.

A total of 26 FIRs were registered following the report’s findings, as per the court's directive to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) established by the Kerala government to probe allegations of sexual abuse within the Malayalam film industry.

Mala Parvathy’s Plea Could Weaken The SIT’s Case

But now everything looks legally moot as the actress has informed the Supreme Court (SC) that her deposition before the Hema Committee was purely for 'academic purposes,' intended to frame recommendations to protect women in the film industry. She contends that she never knew that her pronouncements before the committee would be the basis for kicking off criminal proceedings.

For the record, the FIRs in question pertain to some bad incidents that Mala Parvathy had to face during a film shoot in 2009, and another case involving a different actress—an incident that Mala Parvathy was aware of. Mala Parvathy had also apparently spoken about the prevalence of the casting couch in Mollywood. She later informed the SIT that neither she nor the other actress involved wished to pursue an investigation into her negative experience.

Much was expected following the Hema Committee's report was made public, and that it would lead to justice for many of the #metoo victims, including mainline actresses, in the industry. But now things seem to have moved to square one as the very basis of the FIRs and the SIT's case are under scrutiny.

Not Defining Hema Committee’s Role Is The Fatal Flaw

On the face of it, it is easy to blame the actresses and other witnesses for being non-cooperative or even turning hostile. In September, the SIT told the Kerala High Court that the witnesses who made a statement before the committee were not ready to cooperate and make a statement to the police to initiate criminal proceedings. 

The situation has reached this point because the Hema Committee failed to define its role and responsibilities clearly to those deposing before it. In a Facebook post, Mala Parvathy stated that her statements to the committee were not meant to pursue legal action or identify perpetrators. ''If such intentions had been made clear, I would not have appeared before the committee,'' she said.

This was an echo of what she said in her plea before the SC.

"I provided these details based on assurances that no one’s names or details would be revealed. I completely trusted the three committee members. Had I known this would later serve as a document for legal proceedings, I would not have spoken in such detail. I understood this to be a study aimed at resolving issues in the cinema industry."

Of course, Mala Parvathy is not alone in this. It may be recalled that another actress Ranjani, who had also appeared before the committee, did not want the report public on grounds of privacy concerns.

The whole thing, as it is playing right now, puts in perspective the predicament of #metoo women victims—lack of evidence to nail the perpetrators of sexual crimes. By their very nature, these depraved acts mostly happen away from the privy of other eyes, and hence women cannot come up with strong proofs that can stand legal scrutiny. It ends up as a slugfest of one person's word against another's. It is one of the reasons why sadly many women choose to remain silent despite suffering abuse. Some choose to brave it out. But as Mala Parvathy said in her Facebook post: "Society may judge me differently for this stance. I may not belong among those fighting grand battles or participating in larger struggles. Let this be my failing."  

On the other hand, the case involving actor Nivin Pauly, where allegations against him were proven false, is also sobering. A woman had accused Pauly and five others of misbehaving with her in Dubai. However, after investigations, the police cleared him, as it was established that he was not in Dubai when the alleged incident occurred.

At the end of the day, the authorities were wrong in not clearly defining the terms and workings of the Hema Committee. Now, after providing frenzied headlines and salacious news reports, nothing more may come out of it. Sadly, this was always expected to be the script.