The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) informed the Kerala High Court on Wednesday that it is prepared to grant certification to the Suresh Gopi-Anupama Parameswaran film JSK: Janaki v/s State of Kerala, provided the producers implement two specific changes. To address its concerns, CBFC proposed that the title be modified to reflect the character’s full name, either as Janaki V v/s State of Kerala or V Janaki v/s State of Kerala, and that the name 'Janaki' be muted in the specific courtroom sequence. The CBFC clarified that it had no objection to retaining the abbreviation 'JSK' as part of the main title. Justice N Nagaresh noted that the Court would resume hearing the matter at 1.45 pm after recording the producers’ response to the proposed conditions.
CBFC filed a detailed counter-affidavit defending its stance, arguing that the name 'Janaki' is inextricably linked with Goddess Sita from the Ramayana. According to the affidavit, sworn by CBFC CEO Rajendra Singh, depicting a character bearing this name as a rape survivor who is subjected to courtroom humiliation, including questions about pornography, drugs, and prior sexual relationships, amounts to a deliberate misappropriation of a sacred identity. The CBFC contended that such a portrayal could deeply offend religious sentiments, undermine the dignity associated with Goddess Sita and, particularly given the film’s planned multilingual release, disturb public order. CBFC maintained that “an average moral man” or an “ordinary man of common sense and prudence” would inevitably find the content offensive. It also highlighted that the storyline involves communal undertones, showing the protagonist being assisted by a person from one religious community while being interrogated by someone from another. This combination, the CBFC argued, could inflame divisive sentiments and provoke communal discord.
Addressing the producers’ claim that prior clearance of the film’s teaser justified certification of the full feature, CBFC asserted that trailers are examined independently without access to the entire script and cannot be treated as precedent. It distinguished JSK from films such as Sita Ramam or Malikappuram, contending that those productions used divine names symbolically or portrayed deities in devotional contexts, whereas JSK involved a narrative combining sexual violence and religious references provocatively. In its submission, the CBFC also pointed to past instances where contentious titles, such as Laxmmi Bomb and Sexy Durga, were altered to avoid public disorder, insisting that similar precautions were justified here. The affidavit further argued that the producers had never demonstrated that replacing the name 'Janaki' would dilute the film’s artistic vision or message.
CBFC characterised the proposed modification as a lawful, reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, necessary to preserve public decency and prevent potential tensions. It also criticised the producers for bypassing the statutory appellate procedure under the Cinematograph Act and instead directly approaching the High Court via a writ petition, describing the move as an attempt to secure an additional layer of appeal. The CBFC dismissed suggestions that compliance would cause undue commercial hardship, stating that financial inconvenience could not override legal obligations.
The dispute arose after Cosmos Entertainments, the film’s production company, approached the Court alleging that the CBFC’s delay in certification was arbitrary and violated their rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Directed by Pravin Narayanan, JSK is reportedly a courtroom drama focusing on a sexual assault survivor’s legal struggle. Earlier this week, the Court had questioned the CBFC’s reasoning, observing that objections might be more understandable if the name 'Janaki' had been used for an accused rather than a victim. It also criticised the Board’s inconsistency, noting that the film’s teaser had been cleared without any objections. The matter will be taken up again this afternoon for further arguments and to determine whether the producers will agree to the CBFC’s conditions.
