Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas Challenging HC Order To Register FIR On Witness Statements Before Justice Hema Committee

The Supreme Court today (January 21) reserved the judgment in the three Special Leave Petitions filed challenging the Kerala High Court's October 2024 direction to the police to register FIRs on statements made by women actors to the Justice Hema Committee regarding the abuses they faced in the Malayalam cinema industry.A bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Sajay Karol said that the order will be delivered next Monday (January 27).As per the October 14, 2024 order, a High Court Bench of Justices A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and C. S. Sudha, hearing matters related to the Justice Hema Committee Report, observed that the witness statements in the Justice Hema Committee Report disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, which could be treated as "information" to take action as per Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (provides for registration of FIR when information is received regarding the commission of a cognizable offence).It directed the Special Investigating Team (SIT), constituted by the Government to inquire into the allegations made in the Justice Hema Committee Report, to take the necessary action as per Section 173 of the BNSS.Three petitions have been filed against the October 14 order by film producer Sajiman Parayil, a Malayalam film actress, who deposed before the Justice Hema Committee and another Malayalam actress has filed only recently. The Kerala Women Commission has intervened in the matter supporting the registration of FIRs.What transpired in courtroom? Senior Advocate R. Basant, for Sajimon Parayil, argued that the directions first ask for the crime to be registered and then a subsequent investigation into its commission. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Sajay Karol at the outset had questioned the locus of the first petitioner. Justice Vikram Nath said: "How he [film producer] is connected with the entire issue?" Adding to this, Justice Karol said: "Adding to what Mylords has put on locus.2. How are you aggrieved? 3.Why should it [J Hema Committee report] be not made public?"Basant responded that the State wants to register FIRs against "all and sundry" and claimed that the FIRs, 26 in number, were registered after the Supreme Court stated that it would hear the matter for interim relief. However, Justice Mehta said that the SLP had been filed in "anticipation" that the directions of the High Court would be used against the film producer. He added: "Then, you do have remedies in law". Justice Mehta questioned Basant: "Can there be a writ in anticipation of the registration of an FIR?...Are we hearing a PIL?...In anticipation, you want to foreclose the right of anyone for the investigating agency to register an FIR?" Justice Nath clarified that if a crime has been committed and the same is brought to the notice of the police officer, FIR has to be registered. He said: "Crime coming into the knowledge of the police has to be necessarily registered. Whether during investigation, victim may say I have no grievance, the investigating officer will close everything...It is your assumption that this may happen..that may happen."Second is the set of two petitions in which Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave appeared. In this, Dave said that the petitions are filed by witnesses who deposed before the Justice Hema Committee purely with an academic purpose so that the recommendations could be used to improve the Malayalam film industry. They did not go before the committee to pursue any criminal investigation. He argued that the police are now "harassing" them even though they have stated they are not interested in criminal proceedings. Dave further submitted that copies of FIRs have not been given to them.On the other side, the petitions are opposed by Kerala Women Commission represented by Advocate Parvathi Menon. Menon has challenged the locus of the petitioners and argued that the first petitioner is not even affected by the directions. Mere anticipation cannot be used to halt ongoing proceedings which is duly monitored by the High Court. She also pointed out that in the second set of petitions in which Dave appeared, the first is a hearsay witness and not a victim. Menon added that whatever concerns the women have, it is duly taken care of by the High Court which has also appointed a sensitive Nodal Officer in this regard.She also stated that the first petitioner had moved the High Court against the State Information Commissioner's order to publish the Justice Hema Committee report where his locus was questioned.Advocate Sandhya Raju appeared for two make-up artists. Raju stated that they are facing threats and intimidation after they deposed of before the SIT. A similar plea was raised by Menon of threat and intimidation faced by women who appeared before the SIT. She added many have even lost their jobs in the film industry. In terms of identity victim and accused, the Justice Hema Committee's report is masked,...

Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Pleas Challenging HC Order To Register FIR On Witness Statements Before Justice Hema Committee

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags