Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has expressed dismay at the Government’s prolonged inaction regarding the Hema Committee Report, which exposed widespread allegations of sexual harassment and other issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. The Court noted that despite the report being submitted in 2019, the Government has maintained silence for five years.

The court’s rebuke came while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of actor Siddique in a rape case. A single judge bench of Justice C.S. Dias remarked, “The Government of Kerala had appointed an Expert three- member Committee headed by Justice K. Hema, a former Judge of this Court, to study and report the issues faced by women in cinema and suggest solutions to their problems. Although the Expert Committee submitted the report to the Government in 2019, mysteriously, the Government maintained a sphinx-like silence for five years. Ultimately, it was only through the intervention of this Court that the report saw the light of day.”

The court, however, refrained from addressing the Government's decision to shelve the report and the future actions to be taken, as these matters are currently under review by a Division Bench. The court stated that “in view of the directions of this Court to publicise the report, the same has presumably emboldened the victims, like the survivor, to step forward.”

The court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2024) and noted : “a woman deserves respect howsoever high or low she may be otherwise considered in society or to whatever faith she may follow or any creed she may belong to.”

Turning to the present case, wherein Siddique (petitioner) is accused of raping a woman at Muscot Hotel in Trivandrum, where she had been invited to discuss a new film project, the court emphasised the necessity of Siddique’s custodial interrogation. The court observed that the nature of the allegations against the petitioner were serious, along with evidence suggesting his involvement in the crime, the Court determined that anticipatory bail was not justified.

The court also considered the argument by the petitioner that the complainant lacked credibility, claiming she was an "outspoken and vociferous lady" who had made allegations against fourteen other men and that there was eight-year delay in reporting the incident.

Finding these contentions unwarranted, the court said, “A woman’s experiences of sexual assault are not a reflection of her character but rather an indication of her suffering. The attempt to blame a woman for speaking out may be a strategy to silence her, which is hostile to the supremacy of the law. The courts are called to evaluate the merits of the application, free from any prejudicial assumption of the survivor’s character. The core of the matter is whether the petitioner has prima facie committed the offences alleged against him and whether he is entitled to pre- arrest bail.”

With regards the delay in reporting the incident, the court emphasised that “Victims of sexual abuse and assault may experience psychological, emotional and social barriers that feed the delay in reporting the matter, which necessarily has to be understood in the context of the trauma.”

Further, the petitioner's complete denial of the incident, the requirement for a pending potency test, and the prosecution's apprehension that the petitioner may intimidate witnesses further reinforced the court’s decision to deny bail.

Notably, Siddique has went missing after the High Court’s rejected his anticipatory bail plea, prompting the police to launch a search operation to locate him. A lookout notice has also been issued at airports, anticipating that Siddique may attempt to flee the country.

 

Cause Title:  XXXXXXXXXX v State of Kerala [BAIL APPL. NO. 7331 OF 2024]