Amid rising conversations around censorship and artistic liberty, the recent controversy surrounding the upcoming Malayalam courtroom drama Janaki vs State of Kerala has stirred national debate. Reportedly, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has denied certification to the film, citing objections over the use of the name “Janaki” for the female lead, arguing that the name bears religious sensitivity, being associated with the Hindu goddess Sita.
The film, written and directed by Pravin Narayanan, features veteran actor Suresh Gopi and Anupama Parameswaran in pivotal roles. According to the Wikipedia, the movie tells the story of Janaki, a young woman who seeks justice through the judiciary system after a traumatic incident. Suresh Gopi plays the senior advocate who fights her case in court. The narrative is set against the backdrop of Kerala’s legal system, exploring themes of truth, resilience, and justice.
However, before audiences could witness this socially conscious story unfold, the CBFC stepped in raising objections not against the film’s content, but the name of the protagonist. Their reasoning? That using “Janaki” for a victimized character might hurt religious sentiments, as the name is commonly associated with the goddess Sita from the epic Ramayana.
A Name That Echoes Across Generations
This decision has baffled many in the creative and cultural spheres. The name “Janaki” is not only deeply rooted in Indian mythology, but it is also a common name across households especially in southern India. Countless women bear the name with pride, and its use in art and storytelling is hardly new. Netizens have rightly pointed out the irony in the CBFC’s stance: if Janaki (Sita) herself was a symbol of endurance and injustice in mythology, why is it inappropriate to name a modern fictional victim after her?
The backlash has been swift and vocal.
Film Fraternity and Political Outfits Condemn the Move
B. Unnikrishnan, General Secretary of the Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA), came out in support of the filmmakers, calling the CBFC’s objection “strange” and “unjustified.” He emphasized that censorship in this context borders on an attack against creative freedom.
Political and youth organizations like the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) also expressed concern. In a public statement, DYFI condemned the CBFC’s stance, urging the government and censor authorities to uphold constitutional values and respect the right to artistic expression.
Several legal experts and film critics have raised red flags about the CBFC’s lack of transparency in issuing its directive. The absence of a written explanation further fuels suspicions that the board’s decision may not be rooted in established guidelines but rather in perceived sensitivities that stifle creative voices.
A Worrying Precedent for Indian Cinema
While the CBFC is empowered to certify films, its frequent clashes with filmmakers, especially over symbolic or cultural references have brought to light a growing tension between regulation and creativity in India. If fictional characters are to be denied certain names based on religious or historical connotations, it could set a restrictive and potentially dangerous precedent for artistic work across languages and platforms.
India, with its rich storytelling traditions and complex cultural landscape, must make space for cinema that reflects diverse perspectives even if those narratives challenge societal norms or reinterpret familiar symbols.
In the case of Janaki vs State of Kerala, the very essence of the film is about justice and the voice of a woman wronged by the system. Denying the film a certificate over the name “Janaki” dilutes that message and draws attention away from the more urgent themes it wishes to explore.
Freedom is Not Fictional
The controversy around Janaki vs State of Kerala is not merely about nomenclature, it is about the rights of artists to tell stories without fear of arbitrary censorship. As citizens and storytellers alike raise their voices, the episode serves as a reminder that freedom of expression must be protected not just in law, but in practice.
In a country that celebrates its epics and icons, let us not forget that storytelling mythological or modern draws its strength from freedom, not fear.
