The report states, women in the cinema industry are often pressured to make “compromises” and “adjustments,” terms that implicitly suggest making themselves available for sexual favors. This issue was scrutinized by the Justice K Hema Committee, which was established by the Kerala government in 2017 in response to a petition from the ‘Women in Cinema Collective.’ The committee was tasked with investigating the challenges faced by women in the film industry.

According to women in cinema, harassment starts from the very inception. It is revealed from the statements of various witnesses who were examined before the committee that production controller or whoever gives an offer for role in cinema first approaches the woman/ girl of it it is the other way and a woman approaches any person in cinema seeking a chance in cinema, she is told that she has to make “adjustments” and “compromise” to take her in cinema. “Compromise” and “adjustment” are two terms which are very familiar among women in the Malayalam film industry and thereby they are asked to make herself available for sex on demand,” the report says.

As part of the study, actor Ranjini was among those who provided statements to the committee.

The report from the Justice K Hema Committee, submitted in 2019, was partially made public following a ruling by the State Information Commission (SIC). The SIC allowed the release of certain sections of the report under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), provided that personal information was redacted.

Film producer Sajimon Parayil challenged this decision before the Kerala High Court. However, on August 13, Justice VG Arun dismissed his petition.

Subsequently, actress Ranjini filed an appeal against the August 13 order. She expressed concerns that the release of the report could violate her right to privacy, particularly because the redaction of sensitive information was left to the discretion of an Information Officer. Ranjini noted that she had provided her statement on the understanding that confidentiality would be upheld. She argued that she had a legitimate expectation to be informed and heard before any part of the report that included her statements was released. Additionally, she pointed out that those impacted by the report’s release were not notified about which portions had been redacted before the publication.

Despite her appeal, the Court declined to address her challenge, leading to the report’s release.