1. Challenge to High Court directions regarding investigation of a committee report on cinema industry working conditions and subsequent registration of FIRs by a Special Investigating Team. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 296
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANJAY KAROL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Sajimon Parayil – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala and Others – Respondents
SLP (Civil) Nos. 25250-25251 of 2024, SLP (C) Nos. 27320-27321 of 2024, SLP (C) No. Diary No. 55412 of 2024
Decided On : 07-02-2025
Important Points
The court affirmed the necessity of respecting privacy rights during investigations and clarified that witnesses cannot be compelled to testify, allowing for grievances to be addressed by the High Court.
Subject
Civil Law - Writ Petition
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 176 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Hema Committee report - The court addressed the issue of privacy rights and the necessity for the State to act on the Hema Committee's recommendations for the welfare of women in the Malayalam Cinema Industry. The petitioners challenged the High Court's orders regarding the report's disclosure and the actions of the SIT. (Paras 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7)
(B) Fundamental Rights - The court emphasized that witnesses cannot be compelled to give statements and that the SIT must respect privacy rights during investigations. (Paras 4, 8, 10, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitions arose from the High Court's orders regarding the Hema Committee report, which addressed the working conditions of women in the Malayalam Cinema Industry. The petitioners sought to prevent the report's disclosure, citing privacy concerns. (Paras 3.1, 3.3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court's monitoring of the SIT's actions was appropriate and that the petitioners could approach the High Court for grievances regarding harassment or coercion. (Paras 15, 17)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of disclosing the Hema Committee report and the treatment of witnesses by the SIT. (Paras 3.4, 3.6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the SIT must act in accordance with the law and respect the rights of individuals involved, allowing the High Court to address specific grievances. (Paras 16, 18)
Result: Petitions disposed of with liberty to approach the High Court.
(B) Fundamental Rights - The court emphasized that witnesses cannot be compelled to give statements and that the SIT must respect privacy rights during investigations. (Paras 4, 8, 10, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitions arose from the High Court's orders regarding the Hema Committee report, which addressed the working conditions of women in the Malayalam Cinema Industry. The petitioners sought to prevent the report's disclosure, citing privacy concerns. (Paras 3.1, 3.3)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court's monitoring of the SIT's actions was appropriate and that the petitioners could approach the High Court for grievances regarding harassment or coercion. (Paras 15, 17)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of disclosing the Hema Committee report and the treatment of witnesses by the SIT. (Paras 3.4, 3.6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the SIT must act in accordance with the law and respect the rights of individuals involved, allowing the High Court to address specific grievances. (Paras 16, 18)
Result: Petitions disposed of with liberty to approach the High Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to privacy
-
jurisdiction
- article 136 (Para 11)
-
fundamental rights
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, AOR Mr. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Adv. Mr. Sarath S Janardanan, Adv. Mr. Saswat Adhyapak, Adv. Ms. Namita Kumari, Adv. Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saiby John Kidangoor, Adv. Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv. Mr. Sugam Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ranjith Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, AOR M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Sradhaxna Mudrika, Adv. Ms. Anshika Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Shreya Nair, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Vrinda Baheti, Adv. Ms. Sandhya Raju, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv. Mr. Rohin Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Gouri N., Adv. Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, AOR Mr. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Adv. Mr. Sarath S Janardanan, Adv. Mr. Saswat Adhyapak, Adv. Ms. Namita Kumari, Adv. Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saiby John Kidangoor, Adv. Mr. A. Karthik, AOR Ms. Smrithi Suresh, Adv. Mr. Sugam Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ranjith Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, AOR M/S. Kmnp Law Aor, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Sradhaxna Mudrika, Adv. Ms. Anshika Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Shreya Nair, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Vrinda Baheti, Adv. Ms. Sandhya Raju, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv. Mr. Rohin Bhatt, Adv. Ms. Gouri N., Adv. Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege coercion by investigating agencies and registration of FIRs without evidence; respondents contend the investigation follows legal procedure and High Court monitoring ensures fairness. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 )
3. The court observed that police must act on suspected cognizable offences and the High Court is already monitoring the investigation to prevent harassment or baseless FIRs. (Para 12 , 16 , 18 )
4. Police officers are duty-bound to proceed under Section 176 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, upon receiving information or suspecting the commission of a cognizable offence. (Para 16 )
5. Petitions disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the High Court for redressal of specific grievances regarding harassment or lack of evidence in FIRs. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. Can the court restrain the police from investigating a suspected cognizable offence?
No. Once information is received or an officer-in-charge suspects a cognizable offence has been committed, they are duty-bound to proceed in accordance with the law prescribed under Section 176 of the BNSS. There can be no direction to injunct or restrain the police from proceeding according to law. (Para 16 )
7. What remedy is available to individuals coerced or harassed during a police investigation monitored by a High Court?
Affected individuals may approach the High Court for redressal of their grievances. The High Court can examine whether FIRs are based on material collected during investigation or registered without supporting material, and ensure witnesses are not unnecessarily harassed or coerced. (Para 17 , 18 )
8. Does the registration of an FIR require the cooperation of the witness or victim?
While there cannot be compulsion for witnesses to give statements, police are duty-bound to proceed under Section 176 of the BNSS if they suspect a cognizable offence, provided there are materials to proceed, even if witnesses do not cooperate. (Para 10 , 16 )
ORDER :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Permission to file SLP is granted in SLP (C) D. No. 55412 of 2024.
2. These are petitions assailing the correctness of the orders dated 10.09.2024 and 14.10.2024 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No. 1248 of 2024 and other connected matters. The petitioners are basically aggrieved by some of the directions/observations contained in the order dated 14.10.2024.
3. Before proceeding further to consider the submissions made, brief background of the facts giving rise to the present petitions is as follows:
3.1. On the request of an organisation by the name of Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), the Government of Kerala in 2017 constituted a committee comprising of a retired Judge of the High Court, Justice K. Hema (Chairperson), actor T. Sharda and a retired bureaucrat, Ms. Basala Kumari as members to study the issues raised therein primarily dealing with the working conditions, welfare and the hardship being faced by the women in the Malayalam Cinema Industry. The above committee has been referred to as ‘Hema Committee’ in the proceedings before the High Court as also before this Court.
3.2. The Hema Committee submitted its report on 31.12.2019 to the State Government. Apparently, no action was taken on the recommendations made by the Hema Committee for a substantial period. Certain activists had been requesting for a copy of the report under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which request was denied.
3.3. The petitioner Sajimon Parayil in SLP (Civil) Nos. 25250-25251 of 2024 filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 26497 of 2024 before the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, primarily praying for the relief that the Hema Committee report be not made public as it would be violating privacy rights and would also breach confidentiality in particular to those who have testified before the said Committee. The Single Judge, vide order dated 13.08.2024, dismissed the writ petition on the finding that the petitioner therein had no locus. Aggrieved by the same a writ appeal was preferred which was registered as WA No. 1248 of 2024.
3.4. Before the Division Bench of the High Court several other petitions were filed praying for directions to the State to produce the Hema Committee report and to act upon it, as according to the said petitioners, the committee had made recommendations which, if implemented, would bring about greater safety & security of women working in Cinema Industry in Kerala and also help in improving their working conditions and betterment of their welfare. All these writ petitions, along with the writ appeal, were clubbed together and the Division Bench started monitoring the implementation of the recommendations of the Hema Committee report.
3.5. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Kerala before the Division Bench, on 10.09.2024 produced the report in a sealed cover which the Court required the learned Advocate General to retain with him in safe custody to be produced at a later stage. Further, the Division Bench approved Special Investigating Team 1 [SIT] constituted by the Director General of Police comprising of seven members headed by Inspector General and the Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City and further supervised by the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch.
3.6. In the order dated 10.09.2024, it was recorded that the SIT would be investigating into the complaints received in the recent past after the publication of the Hema Committee report in its redacted form. The Division Bench also noticed that the State had not taken the matter any further and in fact no action had been taken till the constitution of the SIT on 25.08.2024. After recording displeasure at the inaction of the State, the Division Bench issued certain directions as contained in paragraph 7 of the order dated 10.09.2024 which are reproduced here under:
“7. Taking note of the present situation, therefore, we issue the following directions:
(i) The State Gover
