KOCHI, | 30 JUNE , 2025 — The Kerala High Court on Monday strongly criticized the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for raising objections against the title of the movie Janaki v State Of Kerala, starring Union Minister Suresh Gopi, over the use of the name “Janaki,” another name for the goddess Sita.
A Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh questioned the CBFC’s authority to interfere with creative expression and artistic freedom.
“Now you will dictate to the Directors and artists, which name they should give, which story they should use!” the Court asked sharply.
Background of the Dispute
The producers, Cosmos Entertainments, approached the High Court with a writ petition after facing delays in certification. The CBFC had objected to the film’s title and issued a show cause notice to the producers.
Justice Nagaresh questioned the basis of this objection:
“Why should they change the name? You give a reason. What is wrong with Janaki? That is the freedom of artists; you cannot interfere with it.”
KERALA HIGH COURT: PRODUCERS’ SUBMISSIONS
Advocate Haris Beeran, representing the producers, argued that the show cause notice referred to an appeal before the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), which had already been abolished.
“This is the level of application of mind,” Beeran remarked.
The Court acknowledged the procedural flaw but noted:
“I can set aside the notice for that reason alone, but that will not help you.”
Beeran further argued that the name “Janaki” is neither provocative nor offensive according to CBFC guidelines and that the teaser using the same title had already been approved.
“The title has been approved three months back, by the same process,” he submitted.
CBFC’S DEFENSE
The CBFC cited a guideline stating that “visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented” as its reason for objecting to the title.
The Court found this reasoning “prima facie unsustainable,” asking:
“Is Janaki a word contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups? In India, most of the names are attributed to god, whether it is Hindus, Muslims or Christians…. Muhammed, Antony, Ram, Krishna, eighty per cent of names have religious connotations.”
The CBFC argued that neutral names should be used. The Court responded sharply:
“Neutral names? Now you will dictate to the directors and artists, which name they should give, which story they should use!”
DISCUSSION ON CHARACTER PORTRAYAL
When asked about the nature of the character Janaki in the movie, Beeran explained:
“She is a rape victim, who struggles in Court and gets a favourable order. She is an epitome.”
The Court emphasized:
“She is not the rapist? If a rapist is named Rama, Krishna etc. I can understand. Here she is a survivor, fighting for justice. She is the heroine.”
Previous Precedents and Court’s Observations
Beeran pointed out that in 2023, a Malayalam film titled Janaki Jane had been certified without issue. The Court asked CBFC:
“Are you saying that the character in that movie is not fit to have the name Janaki?”
Beeran suggested the Court could watch the film, to which Justice Nagaresh humorously replied:
“Why should I waste two and a half hours?”
NEXT STEPS
Beeran stressed that the ongoing delay was causing significant harm:
“The delay is hurting us,” he submitted.
Justice Nagaresh then directed the CBFC to provide a clear and specific reason if it insists that the title “Janaki” cannot be used.
“You should give me a clear reason why the name Janaki should not be used. If you want to put it in black and white, do it,” the Court said.
The matter has been adjourned to Wednesday for further hearing.
