While Suresh Gopi has denied that this is one of his "firebrand" roles, the political undertones are hard to ignore.
Published Jul 19, 2025 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jul 19, 2025 | 11:01 AM
A poster of the film 'Janaki V vs State of Kerala'. (X)
Actor-politician Suresh Gopi’s long-delayed film Janaki V vs State of Kerala (JSK) has finally been released and has opened to mixed reviews. The movie, which has been in the making since 2018, faced several delays due to Suresh Gopi’s election commitments and other issues including the recent conflict over title with CBFC.
There were also rumours that the film shared a similar theme with Mohanlal and Jeethu Joseph’s courtroom drama Neru. While both films deal with sensitive subjects involving a rape case and the survivor’s fight for justice, the similarities end there.
In JSK, the courtroom scenes are more dramatic and include sharp criticism of Kerala state government and police department. It is to be noted that it is a Suresh Gopi film—and he is currently a Union Minister of State in the BJP led NDA government, who frequently finds himself at odds with the state government on various matters.
After watching the film during its first show in Thrissur on 17 July, actor and Union Minister Suresh Gopi told the media that the movie addresses an important issue concerning women and could also align with the central government’s Nari Shakti (women empowerment) initiative.
He stated that the film presents a novel concept and that the controversy surrounding it should not overshadow the core message. He also encouraged women to watch the film.
A still from the film ‘Janaki V vs State of Kerala’. (X)
As for the movie itself, it presents a powerful theme centred on the need for women’s safety. The story begins with Suresh Gopi’s character, David Abel Donovan, appearing in a case against a Christian priest accused of sexually assaulting a nun—clearly drawing parallels with the Jalandhar nun rape case involving a Malayali bishop.
In an unusual twist for a commercial film, Donovan later represents the defendants in the Janaki rape case, standing in support of the accused. This unexpected angle, along with the bold narrative choices, brings a fresh perspective to the courtroom drama. The initial sequences, with their dramatic tone and intense setup, are reminiscent of Shaji Kailas-style filmmaking. However, while the film had promise, it ultimately needed more conviction in its execution.
Suresh Gopi’s character, a lead lawyer, uses his courtroom arguments to criticize both the previous Left and UDF governments in Kerala, as well as the current state administration, particularly regarding women’s safety. He references Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to live with dignity, asserting that the state is responsible for ensuring this. The film argues that even after 70 years of independence, women are still not safe in the country—a pointed criticism once again directed solely at the Kerala government.
While the film rightly states that a survivor of sexual assault should be cared for by the state, it criticizes the public prosecutor and police, highlighting how incomplete investigations and poorly prepared reports negatively impact trial proceedings.
At the same time, Suresh Gopi’s character praises the Indian judiciary, acknowledging that justice is sometimes denied—not due to flaws in the judiciary itself, but because of weak charge sheets and poor prosecution.
The censor board initially refused to grant the film a censor certificate. The reason cited was that the film portrays a rape survivor named Janaki—another name for the Hindu goddess Sita—which, according to the CBFC, could offend religious sentiments and undermine the dignity and sanctity associated with the name.
The remarks were made by the CBFC in an affidavit submitted to the Kerala High Court. Initially, the CBFC demanded 96 cuts and a change in the film’s title—requests that the filmmakers refused, leading to a legal battle in the High Court.
In its affidavit, the CBFC stated that its certification process involves balancing creative freedom with regulatory oversight, adhering to guidelines that prohibit visuals or language deemed contemptuous toward religious, racial, or other groups.
According to a report by Livelaw, the CBFC further said that in the movie, the title character is cross-examined by a defence lawyer belonging to another religion, who asks her many objectionable questions such as whether she used drugs to enhance sexual pleasure, whether she watched pornographic videos, whether she had a boyfriend etc. Such portrayal can disrupt public order, the CBFC asserted.
A Kerala High Court judge eventually watched the film. Following the court’s intervention, the producers agreed to certain changes proposed by the CBFC. These included changing the title to Janaki V vs State of Kerala and muting the name “Janaki” in specific courtroom scenes.
With the film being highly critical of the Kerala state government and the police department—while the CBFC focused solely on objecting to the name of the lead character—it raises legitimate questions about whether the film functions as political propaganda. This concern is amplified by the fact that it stars a sitting Union Minister of State.
While Suresh Gopi has denied that this is one of his “firebrand” roles, the political undertones are hard to ignore.
Ultimately, JSK suffers from a lack of a strong script. It begins well, with a promising first half, but falters in the second half and ends with a weak, unconvincing climax.
(Edited by Sumavarsha, views expressed here are personal)
