Kerala High Court Today (June 30) questioned CBFC’s objection to the use of the name ‘Janaki’ in the Malayalam movie JSK: Janaki v State of Kerala of BJP Leader Suresh Gopi. The judge strongly defended artistic freedom and sought an explanation from CBFC.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOCHI: The Kerala High Court showed strong confusion and surprise over the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) objecting to the name ‘Janaki’, the title character of the Malayalam movie JSK: Janaki v State of Kerala, starring Union Minister Suresh Gopi. The film tells the story of a rape survivor who seeks justice.
Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) OM Shalina informed the court that the name ‘Janaki’ is another name for the Hindu goddess Sita, and using such a name could hurt religious sentiments. According to her, this may violate rules that do not allow using names or themes that could be seen as disrespectful to any religion.
In response, Justice N Nagaresh clearly expressed that he could not understand the reason behind the objection. He said:
“She is the victim? If a rapist is named Rama, Krishna, Janaki, I may be able to understand. Here she is a heroine fighting for the cause of justice.”
He also sharply criticized the CBFC, saying that it appeared to be interfering with the right to freedom of speech and expression. The judge questioned the logic and fairness of CBFC’s actions with strong words:
“Now you will dictate to directors and artists which names they should use and which stories they should tell? Why should they change the name? What is wrong with 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 court was listening to a petition filed by the film’s production company, M/s Cosmos Entertainments, who complained about an unusual delay in getting the film certified by the CBFC. According to the petition, the film certification application was submitted on June 12 through the CBFC’s e-cinepramaan portal, but no certificate has been issued yet, nor any formal objections raised.
The company mentioned that the film’s teaser trailer had already received CBFC approval, so they were surprised by this new delay. The petition stated:
“Even though no official communication or show cause notice have been received from the respondents, from the newspaper reports, the petitioner came to know that the censor board had directed to change in the title as well as the name of the titular character of Janaki, by citing that it refers to the Hindu goddess ‘Sita’, which shows the inconsistency and arbitrariness in the stand now taken by the Censor Board in objecting to the same title and character name at the stage of certifying the full film, despite having previously granted certification for the teaser without raising any such concerns.”
The plea also argued that since the movie was supposed to release globally on June 27, the delay was not just a procedural problem but a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. The delay could also result in huge financial losses for the production company.
Because of these reasons, the company requested the Court to direct CBFC to quickly issue the censor certificate.
The Kerala High Court has now ordered the Deputy Solicitor General to submit a written statement or counter-affidavit explaining CBFC’s reasons for its objections and the delay.
The production company is being represented by lawyers Advocates Anand B Menon, Haris Beeran, Azhar Assees, and Nabil Kahader.
PREVIOUSLY IN KERALA HC
The Kerala High Court on June 27 raised serious questions against the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for its delay in giving certification to the Malayalam movie JSK: Janaki v State of Kerala, which stars BJP Leader, Union Minister and actor Suresh Gopi.
During the hearing, the Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) OM Shalina, who appeared for CBFC, told the court that the board had concerns about the film’s main character being named “Janaki” — a name commonly associated with the Hindu goddess Sita.
However, Justice N Nagaresh of the Kerala High Court strongly questioned the logic behind this objection. He pointed out that many Indian movies in the past have used religious or divine names in their titles and were still allowed to release.
“Why should somebody change the name of a character? Janaki is a common name used everywhere. What religious purpose? We have movies with names Sita and Gita. Janaki is Sita. Nothing happened then. Nobody had any complaints. We have a film named Ram Lakhan. Nobody has any complaint. How come there are some complaints for Janaki now?”
The CBFC also told the court that the film deals with mature topics like sexual crimes against women and includes strong or explicit language, especially regarding women.
The film’s production company, M/s Cosmos Entertainments, had filed a petition in the High Court after the CBFC did not issue the certificate or send any official objections. According to the petition, the application for certification was submitted through the CBFC’s official e-cinepramaan portal on June 12. Still, there had been no progress.
The company mentioned that the CBFC had already approved and certified the film’s teaser trailer, which makes the current delay seem inconsistent.
The petition also highlighted that the only feedback they had received about the delay was through newspaper reports. It said that:
“Even though no official communication or show cause notice have been received from the respondents, from the newspaper reports, the petitioner came to know that the censor board had directed to change in the title as well as the name of the titular character of Janaki, by citing that it refers to the Hindu goddess ‘Sita’, which shows the inconsistency and arbitrariness in the stand now taken by the Censor Board in objecting to the same title and character name at the stage of certifying the full film, despite having previously granted certification for the teaser without raising any such concerns.”
The filmmakers also told the Court that the movie was scheduled for a global release on June 27, and the delay in issuing the censor certificate was violating their fundamental right to free speech and expression under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. They added that any further delay would result in huge financial losses and requested the Court to instruct CBFC to give the certificate quickly.
Earlier, the Court had decided to wait until the CBFC’s revising committee made a decision. That committee met on June 26 and later issued a show cause notice to the production company, asking them to remove the name “Janaki” from the film’s title, character, dialogues, and every part where it appears.
In response, the production company’s lawyer argued that the revising committee does not have the legal authority to issue such a show cause notice. The lawyer also pointed out that the movie was supposed to release worldwide today (June 27), and this delay from the CBFC was forcing them to postpone the launch.
The Kerala High Court then directed the DSGI to submit a copy of the notice sent to the production company and posted the next hearing for Monday, June 30.
The production house was represented by Advocates Anand B Menon, Haris Beeran, Azhar Assees, and Nabil Kahader.
BACKGROUND
A petition on June 25 was filed in the Kerala High Court saying that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) is taking too much time to give the censor certificate for a Malayalam movie named ‘JSK: Janaki v State of Kerala‘.
This movie stars Union Minister and BJP leader Suresh Gopi and is supposed to be released worldwide on June 27.
Justice N Nagaresh looked at the matter and said that the Revising Committee of the CBFC will have a meeting on June 26. Because of this, the judge decided that the court will listen to the case again on June 27, after the committee gives its decision.
The film production company M/s Cosmos Entertainments said in its petition that they had submitted the application for censor certificate on June 12 through the official online portal of CBFC called e-cinepramaan. However, the CBFC has not yet given the certificate or told them of any official objections.
They also mentioned that earlier, CBFC had already given a censor certificate for the teaser trailer of the film.
The petitioners believe that the delay is because of unofficial concerns raised by the CBFC about the film’s title and the main character’s name ‘Janaki’, which is also the name of the Hindu goddess Sita.
The petition clearly stated:
“Even though no official communication or show cause notice have been received from the respondents, from the newspaper reports, the petitioner came to know that the censor board had directed to change in the title as well as the name of the titular character of Janaki, by citing that it refers to the Hindu goddess “Sita”, which shows the inconsistency and arbitrariness in the stand now taken by the Censor Board in objecting to the same title and character name at the stage of certifying the full film, despite having previously granted certification for the teaser without raising any such concerns,”
-the petition said.
The company said that since the film is releasing on June 27, any further delay in giving the censor certificate is against the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression, as mentioned in Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
They also told the court that this delay will cause big financial loss which cannot be reversed.
Because of all this, the company asked the High Court to tell the CBFC to immediately issue the censor certificate for the film without more delay.
CASE TITLE:
M/s Cosmos Entertainments vs The Regional Officer.
WP(C) 23326/ 2025
Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech and Expression
- This clause ensures the right of citizens to express their views and ideas through various mediums like speech, writing, printing, or any other form.
- It is considered a cornerstone of a democratic society, fostering public discourse and the free exchange of ideas.
- The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to include various aspects, such as the freedom of the press, the right to propagate one’s views, and the right to information about government activities.
- However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which include grounds like public order, decency, morality, and defamation.
Article 19(1)(g): Freedom to Practice any Profession or Occupation
- This clause guarantees citizens the right to choose and pursue any profession, occupation, trade, or business.
- This right allows individuals to earn a livelihood and contribute to the economic development of the nation.
- Similar to Article 19(1)(a), this right is also subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), which can include restrictions related to public interest, morality, or public health.
- For example, the state can impose restrictions on professions that could be hazardous to public health or safety.
In essence, both Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) are crucial for individual liberty and a functioning democracy, but they are not unlimited rights and can be restricted in the interest of the larger public good.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on BJP Leaders
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Central Board of Film Certification
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
