The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) found itself in the crosshairs of the Kerala High Court on Monday, as it attempted to raise objections over something that sounded more like mythology policing than film regulation — the name of a rape survivor character in the Malayalam film JSK: Janaki v State of Kerala.
The film stars Union Minister Suresh Gopi and features a central character named Janaki, who takes on the system after a traumatic assault. The CBFC, however, appears to have taken umbrage with the use of the name ‘Janaki’, arguing — through Deputy Solicitor General OM Shalina — that it alludes to the Hindu goddess Sita, and could therefore be religiously offensive.
Justice N Nagaresh wasn’t buying that argument.
“She’s the victim? If a rapist were named Rama or Krishna or Janaki, I could understand the concern. But here, Janaki is a woman seeking justice. Why object?” he asked, cutting through the fog of bureaucratic sanctimony with pointed clarity.
The Court did not hold back in calling out the broader implications of the CBFC’s behavior, suggesting that the Board was straying dangerously close to curbing artistic freedoms under the guise of moral guardianship.
“Are you now going to dictate what names characters should have, which stories can be told?” Justice Nagaresh asked. “How is ‘Janaki’ contemptuous of religion? You do not have a convincing reason.”
The production house, M/s Cosmos Entertainments, had approached the High Court after the CBFC dragged its feet on issuing a certification, even though the teaser trailer had already cleared the board without a murmur. The official application for the film’s certificate was submitted on June 12, but with just days left for the planned June 27 release, the filmmakers remained in limbo — facing not a formal rejection, but a void of silence and unofficial murmurs of disapproval.
“From newspaper reports, we came to know of the censor board’s objection. Nothing in writing, no official communication — just whispers about changing the name and title,” the petition stated, calling the CBFC’s behavior “arbitrary and inconsistent.”
The petitioners argued that the delay not only violates their right to freedom of speech under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), but also inflicts serious commercial harm with the looming global release.
The High Court has now directed the Centre to file a formal explanation — either in the form of a counter-affidavit or a statement — justifying the CBFC’s position.
For now, it seems the bigger question isn’t about a name, but about the principle: who decides what’s sacred, and can art tell its truth even if it borrows from tradition?
Because if Janaki’s only fault is fighting for justice, maybe the real problem isn’t her name — but the discomfort her story causes.