New Delhi, December 12 – The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that alleged widespread sexual harassment across the Indian film industry. The court ruled that it could not initiate a broad inquiry without specific complaints from survivors.
A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that the petition lacked concrete evidence and was based on speculative claims. “We will examine [the matter] when there is a complaint. Your petition is structured on the report of the Justice Hema Committee, which is already being reviewed by another court,” the bench remarked.
Petition Based on Justice Hema Committee Report
The petitioner, Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi, relied on the findings of the Justice Hema Committee, which highlighted instances of sexual exploitation in the Malayalam film industry. Gopi sought directions for the National Commission for Women (NCW) to investigate alleged violations of fundamental and human rights within the broader Indian film industry.
Additionally, the petitioner requested the verbatim release of the Justice Hema Committee’s report to promote transparency. However, the court underscored that the report was already under scrutiny, and any action required specific complaints from aggrieved individuals.
Court’s Observations
The court highlighted the absence of complaints from survivors as a critical factor in its decision. “The writ petition does not set out any specific complaint of any particular person of sexual harassment, for which no remedy is available. The entire petition is based on surmises without any empirical data,” the bench noted.
It further stated that the Justice Hema Committee was established following complaints from affected parties, and action based on its findings was already underway.
Conclusion
In its order, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that it could not permit a “roving and fishing inquiry” into generalized allegations. The court reiterated the importance of survivors coming forward with specific complaints to enable appropriate legal action.
This ruling highlights the judiciary’s stance on ensuring complaints are substantiated by evidence before taking action on sensitive matters like sexual harassment in the film industry.