Why can't a rape survivor be named Janaki? Kerala HC questions CBFC's objection to Suresh Gopi film
The court criticizes the CBFC's reasoning, emphasizing artistic freedom and the lack of a convincing reason for objection.
The court criticizes the CBFC's reasoning, emphasizing artistic freedom and the lack of a convincing reason for objection.
The court criticizes the CBFC's reasoning, emphasizing artistic freedom and the lack of a convincing reason for objection.
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Monday questioned the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) over its alleged objection to the name of the lead character in the upcoming Malayalam film JSK: Janaki v State of Kerala, starring Union Minister Suresh Gopi.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by the film’s production company, M/s Cosmos Entertainments, seeking urgent certification for the film, which is scheduled for global release on June 27. The petitioner alleged that the CBFC had informally objected to the title and character name 'Janaki', citing religious sensitivities.
During the hearing, Justice N Nagaresh expressed surprise at the CBFC’s reasoning. Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) OM Shalina submitted that the name 'Janaki' refers to the Hindu goddess Sita, and its use may be viewed as contemptuous of religious sentiments.
However, the court found this logic unconvincing. "She is the victim? If a rapist is named Rama, Krishna, or Janaki, I may be able to understand. Here, she is a heroine fighting for the cause of justice," Justice Nagaresh remarked, questioning how such a portrayal could be objectionable.
Criticising the Board’s position, the judge observed:
"Now you will dictate to directors and artists which names they should use and which stories they should tell? What is wrong with the name Janaki? How is it contemptuous of a religion? That is the freedom of artists. You cannot interfere in that. It is not absolute, but you do not have a convincing reason."
The petitioner stated that the application for certification was submitted via CBFC’s e-cinepramaan portal on June 12, but the Board had neither issued the certificate nor formally communicated any objections.
The plea also highlighted that the CBFC had previously cleared the film’s teaser without raising concerns over the name or title. The delay at the stage of full-film certification, the petition argued, was arbitrary and inconsistent.
The production company submitted that the delay violates the fundamental rights to free speech and profession under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and could cause irreparable financial loss. The court directed the DSGI to file a statement or counter-affidavit detailing the reasons behind the CBFC’s stance.
(With Bar and Bench inputs.)