A Malayalam courtroom drama starring BJP heavyweight Suresh Gopi found itself entangled in more than just on-screen legal battles—this time, the controversy is very real, and it begins with a name: Janaki. That name, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) says, is sacred. And in JSK: Janaki v State of Kerala, it’s also the name of a fictional rape survivor.
The CBFC, initially asking for 96 cuts, has now trimmed its demands to just two—but the reasoning behind it has lit a fresh fire over censorship, religion, and artistic freedom.
The Board wants two things:
– Change the subtitle Janaki v State of Kerala to something like Janaki V v State of Kerala, reflecting the full name of the protagonist, Janaki Vidhyadharan.
– Mute the name “Janaki” in a key courtroom cross-examination scene.
Why? Because “Janaki” is another name for Goddess Sita—a figure deeply revered in Hindu mythology. The CBFC sees her portrayal in this film as a slippery slope that could offend religious sentiments and “disturb public order.” Here’s how they broke it down in five pointed objections filed before the Kerala High Court:
1. Goddess or Victim?
The CBFC says showing a character named after a deity being raped and subjected to trauma “undermines the dignity and sanctity” of that divine name. According to them, allowing this depiction could stir public outrage.
2. The Cross-Examination Scene
In a courtroom sequence, Janaki is grilled with deeply invasive questions: her relationship history, alleged drug use, even if she watched porn. The CBFC claims that tying these to a character named after Goddess Sita could cause “religious offense” and disturb the peace.
3. Communal Undercurrents
The story features Janaki being helped by a man from one religious community and interrogated by someone from another. The Board argues that assigning religious identities to these characters—alongside the name “Janaki”—could fan communal flames.
4. Intentional Provocation?
According to the CBFC, the filmmakers intentionally used the name “Janaki” to tap into religious symbolism and draw attention. They argue this was avoidable, and the story could have been told just as powerfully under a different name.
5. The Precedent Problem
The Board warns: approve this film, and you set a precedent. What happens when more filmmakers use sacred names for characters in dark, controversial narratives? The CBFC sees it as a Pandora’s box—once opened, hard to close.
After pushing back for weeks, the filmmakers eventually gave in. With the changes promised, the Kerala High Court ordered the CBFC to grant a censor certificate within three days.
The film, originally slated for a June 27 global release, is now on pause—but only temporarily. The drama in court might soon give way to the one on screen.
