The film has been denied certification by the CBFC’s Revising Committee over the use of the name "Janaki" for a rape survivor character.
Published Jul 02, 2025 | 5:19 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 02, 2025 | 5:19 PM
Kerala High Court. (iStock)
Synopsis: The Kerala High Court will personally view Janaki v. State of Kerala on 5 July before ruling on the CBFC’s refusal to certify it. The CBFC objected to the name “Janaki” for a rape survivor, citing religious sensitivity. The court questioned this stance, citing past mythological names in films.
The ongoing tussle between a Janaki v State of Kerala’s production company and the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) took a fresh turn on Wednesday, 2 July, as the Kerala High Court expressed its intent to personally watch the film before deciding on the matter.
Justice N Nagaresh, who is hearing the plea filed by the makers of Janaki v. State of Kerala, said he would watch the film in court on Saturday, 5 July morning before proceeding further.
The film, starring Union Minister of State Suresh Gopi and Anupama Parameshwaran, has been denied certification by the CBFC’s Revising Committee over the use of the name “Janaki” for a rape survivor character.
Written and directed by Pravin Narayanan, Anupama Parameshwaran plays the lead opposite Suresh Gopi in this courtroom drama.
Earlier, questioning the CBFC’s stand, the judge had remarked that objections might be understandable if a negative character bore a revered name, but here, “she is the heroine, a survivor fighting for justice.”
He had also pointed out that films with mythological names have been certified in the past, citing examples like Seeta Aur Geeta and Ram Lakhan.
During the hearing on Wednesday, the CBFC’s standing counsel sought more time to respond to fresh allegations raised in a second petition filed by the production house, which challenges the Revising Committee’s decision.
The Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the CBFC maintained that the title violated specific provisions under the Cinematograph Act.
As the court observed that both petitions should be heard together, it noted that the Board had not yet filed its counter-affidavit despite earlier directions.
The case, originally concerning a delay in certification ahead of a planned release on 27 June, has now evolved into a broader debate over naming conventions and creative freedom in cinema.
