Supreme Court Declines to Halt Police Probe Based on Statements to Justice Hema Committee
Last Updated on February 7, 2025 by Shianjany Pradhan
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Kerala High Court’s directive to register FIRs based on witness testimonies given before the Justice Hema Committee regarding the sexual exploitation of women in the Malayalam film industry.
A bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta emphasized that once a police officer receives information about a cognizable offense, they are legally obligated to act.
The Court made it clear that no order can be issued to prevent the police from carrying out their investigation.
The order was passed while disposing of Special Leave Petitions filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil and two actors who had challenged the Kerala High Court’s decision from October 2024.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that, under criminal law, if the officer in charge of a police station has reason to believe a cognizable offense has taken place, they must proceed according to the law.
Any attempt to prevent the police from taking necessary action would not be legally sustainable.
Since the Kerala High Court is already overseeing the investigation, the Supreme Court left it open for individuals who testified before the Hema Committee and feel harassed by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to approach the High Court for redressal.
If such grievances are raised, the High Court will assess whether the FIRs are based on material evidence collected by the SIT or registered without substantial grounds.
It will also examine allegations that witnesses are being pressured or coerced into cooperating with the investigation.
The case stemmed from the Kerala High Court’s direction on October 14, 2024, where it recognized that statements recorded by the Justice Hema Committee indicated possible cognizable offenses.
The court ruled that these statements should be treated as “information” under Section 173 of BNSS, requiring the SIT to take necessary steps in accordance with the law.
Challenging this decision, film producer Sajimon Parayil initially moved the Supreme Court.
Later, two women actors who had testified before the Justice Hema Committee also approached the Court, arguing that their depositions were made for academic purposes rather than with the intent of initiating criminal proceedings. One of them further contended that her statements were based on second-hand accounts of exploitation faced by other women, many of whom were unwilling to participate in a criminal inquiry.
The Supreme Court had reserved its verdict.
