The Kerala High Court recently addressed a highly controversial and widely debated issue concerning the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) objection to the title of the Malayalam courtroom drama Janaki v/s State of Kerala. The film, which stars Union Minister Suresh Gopi as a senior advocate and Anupama Parameswaran as the titular character Janaki, portrays the legal battle of a rape survivor seeking justice. The CBFC’s revising committee had refused to grant certification on the ground that the name “Janaki,” being associated with the Hindu goddess Sita, would hurt religious sentiments when used in a context related to sexual violence.
The movie had earlier been cleared by the regional office of the CBFC in Thiruvananthapuram and was slated for release on June 27. However, before the final certification was issued, the CBFC’s revising committee in Mumbai intervened and objected to the title. Their sole concern was the name “Janaki,” which, according to them, might offend religious sentiments if used for a rape survivor. The filmmakers were issued a notice advising them to change the name of the character and the title, without any objections being raised regarding the film’s content or storyline.
This unexpected move by the CBFC prompted the production house, Cosmos Entertainments, to approach the Kerala High Court seeking urgent intervention. The petitioners argued that the name Janaki is commonly used across India and cannot be claimed to exclusively denote a deity. They contended that the CBFC’s reasoning was arbitrary, disproportionate, and amounted to an unconstitutional restriction on artistic freedom and freedom of expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
During the hearing, Justice N. Nagaresh of the Kerala High Court expressed strong reservations about the CBFC’s position. The judge questioned whether the Board had any authority to mandate or interfere with the choice of a film’s title or its character names. He referred to earlier films such as Seeta Aur Geeta and Ram Lakhan, where names derived from Hindu mythology were used without controversy. The Court stressed that the film did not contain any derogatory reference to the name Janaki and pointed out that the protagonist is a survivor, not a criminal or negative character. In this context, the use of the name should not be seen as offensive.
The Court was also displeased with the procedural handling of the issue by the CBFC. The judge noted that instead of issuing a formal and well-reasoned notice as required under the law, the Board merely issued an informal objection with no clarity or explanation. The Court directed the CBFC to submit its detailed explanation and show cause by July 2 and stated that such delays and vague objections cannot be allowed to hinder the release of a film, especially when the process is bound by legal timelines.
Adding to the mounting pressure on the CBFC, the Kerala film fraternity, including major organizations like FEFKA (Film Employees Federation of Kerala), AMMA (Association of Malayalam Movie Artists), and the Kerala Film Producers Association, staged protests outside the CBFC office in Thiruvananthapuram. Prominent members of the industry condemned the move, asserting that it sets a dangerous precedent and threatens artistic freedom. As a symbolic gesture, participants in the protest threw away scissors to represent their opposition to censorship. Cultural Affairs Minister Saji Cherian also came out in support of the film’s team, criticizing the CBFC for overstepping its mandate.
The CBFC, through the Deputy Solicitor General, defended its action by stating that the film contains sensitive themes like rape, courtroom scenes, and aggressive language, and that the association of such content with a revered name like Janaki might offend certain religious groups. They cited provisions of the CBFC guidelines that caution against content that may hurt religious or cultural sentiments.
However, the Court remained unconvinced by the argument that the mere use of a name, even one associated with a deity, in a serious and sympathetic portrayal, could be deemed offensive. The bench emphasized that censorship decisions must be based on actual content and not speculative hurt to sentiment, particularly when no derogatory depiction is involved. The judge also raised concerns about the lack of an appellate mechanism since the dissolution of the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), leaving filmmakers with no effective remedy apart from approaching constitutional courts.
Recognizing the importance of viewing the film firsthand before passing judgment, the Kerala High Court ordered a private screening of Janaki v/s State of Kerala within the court premises. The screening was scheduled to be attended by representatives of both the filmmakers and the CBFC. The Court stated that watching the film would help determine whether the concerns raised by the Board were justified or whether they represented an unjustified curtailment of creative freedom. The matter was listed for the next hearing after the screening, scheduled for July 9.
This case has brought into focus the longstanding tension between creative freedom and institutional censorship in Indian cinema. The High Court’s approach, which favors procedural transparency and artistic liberty, stands in contrast to what many have criticized as arbitrary decision-making by the CBFC. The judgment is likely to have significant implications for future certification disputes, particularly regarding the naming of characters and the interpretation of cultural and religious sensitivity.
By challenging the CBFC’s directive and demanding a more thoughtful and legally consistent approach, the Kerala High Court has sent a strong message that the use of traditional or religious names cannot, by itself, justify denial of certification. The court has reinforced the idea that freedom of artistic expression includes the right to portray survivors of violence with dignity, irrespective of the names they are given, provided the overall content respects the law and public decency.
In the larger context, the case raises urgent questions about the authority and functioning of the CBFC, especially in the absence of an appellate tribunal. It points to the need for reforms in the film certification process to ensure that filmmakers are not at the mercy of arbitrary decisions and that their work is judged on objective, legally sound grounds. The case also reiterates the judiciary’s role as the ultimate protector of constitutional rights, particularly when executive or quasi-judicial bodies overreach their mandate.
In summary, the Kerala High Court’s handling of the Janaki v/s State of Kerala dispute has become a pivotal moment in the discourse on cinematic freedom in India. The outcome of this case is not only awaited by the filmmakers but by the entire film industry and free speech advocates, as it has the potential to set precedent on how much say certification bodies can have over creative expression and narrative integrity.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.