Introduction:
The Kerala High Court, in a case involving the implementation of the Hema Committee Report, made significant observations regarding the composition of the Film Policy Drafting & Cinema Conclave Committee. The Special Bench, comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice C.S. Sudha, heard a petition concerning the appointment of the Chairperson for the committee overseeing policy discussions related to the entertainment industry. The petition, filed by Jannath against the State of Kerala and other respondents, raised concerns over the selection of a committee head accused of gender-based bullying and corruption. Advocate Sandhya Raju, appearing for the petitioner, argued that appointing such a person to oversee discussions on gender issues in cinema would defeat the purpose of implementing the recommendations of the Hema Committee. She emphasized that a leader who inspires confidence among women should be chosen to ensure that the conclave achieves its intended goals. In response, the State Counsel contended that the committee was merely a consultative body collecting information and that the final policy decision rested with the government. However, the Court maintained that the appointment of the Chairperson should be carefully considered, as it would impact the credibility and effectiveness of the conclave.
Arguments:
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sandhya Raju, raised concerns about the integrity of the Cinema Conclave’s leadership, highlighting that the current appointee had been accused of misconduct and gender-based bullying. She argued that appointing such a person would send the wrong message and undermine the objectives of the Hema Committee Report, which was intended to address gender discrimination in the film industry. The advocate further pointed out that the conclave was a crucial step in framing policies for protecting women in the workplace, particularly in the entertainment sector, and therefore, its leadership should reflect the values it aims to promote. The petitioner urged the Court to ensure that the committee was chaired by someone with a clean record who could instil confidence in women working in the industry. Sandhya Raju also suggested that the draft legislation being formulated should not be limited to the entertainment industry alone, as reports of workplace harassment were emerging from various other fields. She proposed that the legislation be designed to accommodate other industries where similar issues were prevalent.
On the other hand, the State, represented by its counsel, opposed the concerns raised by the petitioner. The State argued that the Cinema Conclave Committee did not have any decision-making power regarding policy formulation. The government contended that the committee’s sole function was to gather inputs from various organizations and stakeholders before presenting them to the government, which would then take the final call on policy matters. The State emphasized that the concerns over the Chairperson’s credibility were unsubstantiated allegations, as there had been no legal findings against the individual in question. The State further submitted that extensive consultations had already been carried out, with inputs gathered from 140 organizations, making it a broad process. The counsel maintained that the consultative nature of the conclave ensured that no single individual, including the Chairperson, could unilaterally influence the outcome.
Judgement:
The Court, after considering the arguments from both sides, made crucial oral observations emphasizing the importance of having a leader who inspires confidence among women. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar noted that since the Cinema Conclave was addressing issues that had come to the forefront due to the Hema Committee Report, the committee’s leadership needed to reflect the concerns and aspirations of women in the industry. The Court stated that a committee tasked with addressing gender-related issues should not be chaired by someone whose past conduct raises concerns among stakeholders. The Bench also acknowledged the suggestion made by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, who proposed that appointing a woman as the Chairperson would enhance the credibility of the committee. He pointed out that the Hema Committee itself had been led by three women, ensuring a gender-sensitive approach in its findings and recommendations. The Court agreed that while the allegations against the current Chairperson had not been legally established, it would still be prudent to reconsider the appointment to ensure trust and confidence among women working in the industry.
The Court also sought clarity from the State regarding the exact function of the conclave, questioning whether it would have any role in shaping the final policy. In response, the State clarified that the conclave was merely a forum for discussion and that the final decision on policy matters rested with the government. The Court directed the State to submit a report detailing the objectives and structure of the conclave before the next hearing. Additionally, the Bench acknowledged the submission made by Sandhya Raju regarding the broader application of the draft legislation. While the primary focus was on the entertainment industry, the Court noted that workplace harassment was a widespread issue, and once the legislation was in place, it could be extended to other industries based on necessity. The Court concluded by scheduling the next hearing for the first week of March, instructing the State to provide a clear roadmap for the Cinema Conclave’s functioning.