Justice for Women in Film: How the Hema Committee Sparked a Movement
Category: Criminal Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court Tuesday extended the interim anticipatory bail granted to Malayalam actor Siddique, who is facing allegations of rape, by another week.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma adjourned the hearing after Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Siddique, urged to defer it, saying he was suffering from a bad throat.
Appearing for the Kerala Government, Senior Advocate Ranjit Singh said Siddique is not cooperating with the investigators though he was appearing before them.
BACKGROUND
On October 22, the bench extended the interim anticipatory bail granted to actor Siddique on September 30 for another two weeks, after senior advocate V Giri, for Siddique, sought time to file a rejoinder to the status report filed by the Kerala Police opposing his petition. He added that after the court’s interim order, Siddique appeared before the investigating officer. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, for the State of Kerala, submitted that Siddique was not cooperating with the investigation and was destroying the evidence.
When Justice Trivedi pointed out that the complaint was filed by the victim eight years after the alleged incident, Ranjit Kumar explained the developments related to the Justice Hema Committee’s report on the abuses faced by women in the Malayalam cinema industry. Kumar submitted that the victim mustered the courage to come out with the allegations following the publication of the Hema Committee report and requested the court to understand the delay in the filing of the First Information Report (FIR) in the case.
The young actress alleged that Siddique sexually exploited her in 2016 when she met him in a hotel room after he offered her opportunities in the film industry. This was after the publication of the Justice Hema Committee report regarding the exploitations faced by women in Malayalam cinema.
Meanwhile the State of Kerala, argue that the Siddiques wasn't cooperating with the investigation process also accusing him of attempting to destroy evidences. The prosecution however, justified the delay in the actress’s report by pointing to the Hema Committee findings, arguing that they gave her the courage to come forward despite the time lapse.
KEY ASPECTS
Delayed Reporting and the Justice Hema Committee Report: The delay was being used by Siddique as a basis for questioning the complaint’s authenticity, however the prosecution justified the delay in the actress’s report by pointing to the Hema Committee findings, arguing that they gave her the courage to come forward despite the time lapse.
Allegations of a Media Trial: Siddique argued that the investigation was more concentrated on creating a public spectacle than seeking justice. They submitted that the case is being driven by the influence of the media rather than the original facts of the case.
Siddique's Defense on Procedural Grounds:Before implicating him, the police did not conduct a thorough investigation, the actor’s team claimed. On the other hand the prosecution accused him of tampering with evidence and not fully cooperating, bringing up additional procedural challenges to the court's decision-making.
CONCLUSION
This is the case of a watershed in the very debate of abuses in the film fraternity. Societal change intervenes, impelling survivors to be vocal even years after incidents take place. While the court deliberates both on procedural ramifications and complications of late reporting, the extended anticipatory bail for Siddique provides time for further scrutiny. Considering the broader impact of the Justice Hema Committee report, the judgment that will be pronounced finally by the court may have implications in some of the future cases of delayed complaints of abuse within the industry.
Written by : ADV ANIK
