Why Union Minister Suresh Gopi-starrer ‘Janaki' is in censor board's crosshairs

The Print

21 hours ago

Ironically, the notice was sent to the film makers on the day the movie was scheduled for a world-wide release.
In a show cause notice dated 27 June, issued to the makers of Malayalam feature film JSK–Janaki v/s State of Kerala, the Board asked them to change the name of the lead character 'Janaki' in the title and dialogues, or wherever it occurs in the movie. The objection is under Clauses 2(xii) and 6 of the Guidelines for certification of Films of Public Exhibition.
New Delhi: The word 'Janaki' is provocative, vulgar, offensive and contemptuous of race and religion. Or so the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC) thinks.
To make matters worse, the Board's notice gave liberty to the production company to appeal against the former's order before a tribunal that has been abolished. The notice said the company, if aggrieved by its order, can move the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) within 30 days. However, with the notification of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, FCAT no longer exists.
In Hindu mythology, 'Janaki' specifically refers to Sita, the wife of Lord Ram.
The notice has now been challenged in the Kerala High Court, where the film producer has claimed that the Board's move is not just discriminatory, but also lacks consistency.
In the writ petition filed before the HC, the producer—Cosmos Entertainment—claimed that many films with the word 'Janaki' in the title have been released in the past, with CBFC's clearance. Besides, films with titles or lead characters with names referencing other Hindu figures too have been screened without any objection from the Board, the petition claims.
Therefore, the Board's move to block JSK—Janaki v/s State of Kerala—amounts to selective targeting and demonstrates non-application of mind, which is an arbitrary exercise of power, says the petition.
The petition further asserts that the continued use of the name 'Janaki' in Indian cinema underscores that it is not intrinsically offensive or controversial.
During a hearing Tuesday, the Kerala HC bench of Justice N. Nagaresh accepted the production company's suggestion to view the film before deciding on the petition. The film shall be screened for him on 7 July at 10 am at Lal Media, Palarivattom.
Though the CBFC has officially not given reasons for the show cause notice it issued to the production company, before the court its lawyer had contended that the character 'Janaki' in the film is sexually assaulted.
Speaking to ThePrint, the production company's advocate Anand Menon said that the objection came as a surprise to his client. 'When the movie was previewed in Trivandrum, the board's representatives orally told the production company that the movie would receive a UA 13+ certificate for its release,' he said. Also the Board's examining committee had cleared the movie.
Sub-clause 12 of Clause 2 of the said guidelines provides that the Board shall ensure that the visuals or words that are contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups are not presented. Clause 6 authorises the Board to scrutinise the titles of the films carefully and ensure they are not provocative, vulgar, offensive or violative of any other guidelines.
CBFC derives these delegated powers from sections 5B(1) and 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 that enumerates guiding principles to certify films.
Under section 5B(1), the Board can decline to certify a film for public exhibition if the film or any part of it is against the interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with a foreign State, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of offence.
The Guidelines for Certification of Films of Public Exhibition, which have been invoked to raise objection against JSK—Janaki v/s State of Kerala, have been issued by the Centre under section 5B(2) of the Act. This provision says the Centre can set out principles that will guide the competent authority to clear the film for release
Significantly, the production company's advocate Anand Menon said that the Board has not recommended any other cuts or modifications, which indicate that the film, otherwise, satisfies the statutory certification standards. 'The refusal to certify the film solely on the basis of a fictional name reflects an excessive, unreasonable and disproportionate exercise of discretion,' he said.
As per the petition in the HC, the CBFC had on 28 March issued a teaser certificate to the film without any objections. On 18 June, the film was screened before the CBFC's examination committee. When the production house did not receive any feedback from CBFC, it moved a petition in HC, seeking its intervention in light of the inaction and delay on the Board's part in issuing the censor certificate.
During a hearing of this petition on 25 June, the Board told the HC it had constituted a revising committee to view the film and that it would file its report before the court. Two days later, however, the movie producer received the show-cause notice, objecting to the film's name.
According to the production house, the film is slated for theatrical release in 21 countries and any disruption now will result in escalated logistics and distribution costs.
The direction to change the name 'Janaki' in the title and dialogues at this belated stage will impose an unreasonable and disproportionate burden on the film's producers as implementing the change would require extensive re-dubbing by at least 16 voice artists, the petition points out. This will be 'commercially catastrophic, operationally impracticable and manifestly arbitrary,' the petition has said.
Lead actor Suresh Gopi would alone have to re-dub over 96 instances where the name 'Janaki' appears. This is likely to take 15 days, whereas the film is scheduled to release in five languages and corresponding re-dubbing in all those languages would also be necessitated.
CBFC's objection also threatens to disrupt the movie's release on OTT platforms since the contractual terms require the production company to hand over the final cut of the film by 30 July.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: 127 cuts for Punjab '95 shows institutional paranoia