In a significant turn of events, the Kerala High Court on Monday, August 19, 2024, dismissed an appeal filed by actor Ranjini, also known as Sasha Selvaraj. The appeal was a challenge to a single judge’s order that had upheld the directive by the State Information Commission (SIC) to make public the Justice K. Hema Committee’s report concerning the working conditions of women in the Malayalam film industry, albeit with limited redactions.
The Division Bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaq and Justice S. Manu, directed the actor to seek redressal by filing a writ petition with a single judge. This ruling follows the earlier decision by Justice V.G. Arun, who had upheld the SIC’s order while dismissing a writ petition filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil.
Actor Ranjini’s primary concern revolves around privacy. She contended that the redaction of sensitive portions of the report was being left to the discretion of the concerned Information Officer. According to her, this could result in a potential violation of her privacy. She clarified that she was not opposed to the publication of the report itself but was uneasy with the manner in which the decision was being made, as it placed the responsibility of safeguarding privacy solely on the Information Officer.
Ranjini further argued that the individuals who provided statements to the committee were unaware of which parts would be redacted. She believed she was legally entitled to privacy based on assurances of confidentiality, which she feared might be compromised by the SIC’s order. Ranjini also pointed out that under the Indian Constitution, the Right to Privacy (Article 21) should take precedence over the Right to Information (Article 19(1)(a)) when these rights come into conflict.
The Justice K. Hema Committee, led by former Kerala High Court Judge K.
. Hema, was established in the aftermath of a high-profile sexual assault case involving an actor in 2017. The committee submitted its report to the Kerala government on December 31, 2019. However, it has not been made public due to concerns that it contains sensitive information. The SIC’s order to release the report came in response to applications filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The report was scheduled for release on Saturday, August 17, 2024. However, its publication was delayed following Ranjini’s appeal. The SIC’s directive aimed to ensure transparency and accountability within the Malayalam film industry, which has faced numerous allegations concerning the treatment of women.
The decision to make the report public with limited redactions was backed by activists and advocates for women’s rights, who argue that the transparency will pave the way for reforms in the industry. They emphasize that the public has a right to know about the working conditions and systemic issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry.
Despite the support for transparency, Ranjini and others who provided their statements to the committee are worried about the potential violation of their privacy. They fear that even with redactions, sensitive information might still be inadvertently disclosed, which could have personal and professional repercussions.
The Kerala High Court’s dismissal of Ranjini’s appeal highlights the ongoing tension between the right to information and the right to privacy. This case underscores the challenges faced by the judiciary in balancing these competing rights in a manner that respects individual privacy while also promoting transparency and accountability.
Legal experts suggest that Ranjini’s next step, as advised by the High Court, would be to file a writ petition challenging the SIC’s order in a single judge’s court. This move will likely initiate another round of legal scrutiny and debate over the SIC’s decision and the broader implications for privacy and transparency in sensitive cases.
As the case progresses, it will be closely watched by stakeholders within the Malayalam film industry and beyond, as it may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future. The outcome could have significant implications for the privacy rights of individuals who participate in investigative committees and the public’s right to information in India.
