Justice Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
Hema Committee Report| Once Information Of A Cognizable Offence Is Received, Police Cannot Be Restrained From Investigating It: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court granted the Petitioners liberty to approach the Kerala High Court for redressal of their grievances.
The Supreme Court has held that once information of a cognizable offence is received, a police officer cannot be restrained from proceeding with its investigation in accordance with law under Section 176 of the BNSS.
The Court disposed of an Appeal filed by film producer Sajimon Parayil while directing the Kerala High Court to examine grievances raised by individuals alleging coercion by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing complaints of crimes against women in the Malayalam film industry.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “Under criminal jurisprudence, once information is received or otherwise an officer-in-charge of a police station has reason to suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, he is duty bound to proceed in accordance to law as prescribed under Section 176 of BNSS. There can be no direction to injunct or restrain the police officer from proceeding in accordance to law.”
Senior Advocates Siddhartha Dave and R Basant represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocates Ranjith Kumar and Gopal Sankarnarayanan appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts: Hema Committee Report & SIT Formation
The Government of Kerala, in response to concerns raised by the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), constituted a committee in 2017 under retired Justice K. Hema to study the working conditions and challenges faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. The Hema Committee submitted its report on December 31, 2019, but no action was taken on its recommendations for a long time.
A number of Petitions were filed in the Kerala High Court seeking the implementation of the committee’s recommendations, while other Petitions opposed its public disclosure due to privacy concerns. The High Court, while monitoring the matter, directed the formation of an SIT on August 25, 2024, under the supervision of the Additional Director General of Police (Crime Branch) to investigate recent complaints emerging after the partial publication of the Hema Committee report.
Allegations Of Harassment & Pressure At SIT’s Instance
The following concerns were raised about the SIT’s functioning before the Supreme Court, alleging:
- Two women had a specific grievance of being harassed and coerced by the SIT and complaints being registered at their instance despite their specific denial of any harassment or victimisation or they being made witnesses in such cases and being coerced to give statements to the SIT.
- Harassment under the pretext of investigation, even against those who did not file complaints.
They sought relief from the Supreme Court, requesting directives to restrain the SIT from compelling them to make statements and from registering cases.
Court’s Order
“We leave it open for the affected persons who had deposed before the Hema Committee and are being compelled by the SIT to depose before it to approach the High Court for redressal of their grievances,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “We may only observe that the Division Bench of the High Court would consider the specific grievances which may be raised by the present petitioners, or any other individual facing similar harassment and will also examine as to whether the FIR registered are based upon material collected during the investigation by the SIT or they are being registered without any supporting material. The High Court will also look into the grievances of those individuals who had deposed before the Hema Committee that they are not unnecessarily harassed or coerced or compelled to depose before the SIT.”
Cause Title: Sajimon Parayil v. State Of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 171)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates Siddhartha Dave and R Basant; AOR Abid Ali Beeran P and A. Karthik; Advocates Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Sarath S Janardanan, Saswat Adhyapak, Namita Kumari, Smrithi Suresh, Sugam Agrawal and Ujjwal Sharma
Respondents: Senior Advocates Ranjith Kumar and Gopal Sankarnarayanan; AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker, Paras Nath Singh, Lakshmi N. Kaimal and Kamakshi S. Mehlwal; Advocates Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Kuriakose Varghese, V Shyamohan, Sradhaxna Mudrika, Anshika Bajpai, Shreya Nair, Tushar Srivastava, Vishal Sinha, Shourya Dasgupta, Vrinda Baheti, Sandhya Raju, Neeleshwar Pavani, Rohin Bhatt and Gouri N.