A Malayalam film Titled JSK – Janaki vs State of Kerala – Has Found Itself at the Center of a Censorship Controversy, Triggering A Widespreads Protest Across the Film Industry and Drawing Sharp Remarking Sharp Remarking For the Krala High Court. But what exactly is the row about, and why it provided such a strong reaction?
Janaki vs State of Kerala: What is the Row?
The Controversy Erupted when the Tentral Board of Film Certification (CBFC) ‘S Revising Committee reportedly objected to the name “Janaki” used in the film’s title and demanded that it is changed. The board allegedly took isesue with the fact that “janaki” is another name for the Hindu Goddess Sita, and the Film Depicts the Character – Loso Named Janaki -Aas A Rape Survivor Seeking Justice from the State.
As a result, the certificate process was stalled, despite the film already releasing its teaser nearly three months ago with no public objection.
Industry Stands in Protest
The film Freaternity in Kerala Has Rallied in Support of the Filmmakers, Calling The CBFC’s Objection Arbitrary and An Attack on Artistic Freedom. Major Industry Bodies Such as the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) and the Film Employees Federation of Kerala (Fefka) Launched a United Protest On June 30, Demanding that the film is curtified Without interference in creative choices, reported the Hindu.
What Kerala High Court said
As the matter reacted the judiciary, the kerala high court made Oral observations questions questioning the CBFC’s Stance. The plea was by the film’s production company, cosmos entertainments, against the delay in CBFC Certification.
During a hearing on July 1, justice n nagaresh asked whether it was now the CBFC’s Job to Dictate What Names Filmmakers COLD Use.
“She is a victim. She is a heroine fighting for justice. “Has Anyone Complained About The Name Janaki? Whose Sentiments are being hurt? Has anyone actually raised an objection?”
He further emphasized that Religious Names Are Commonly Used In India and Cannot be Consored Merely Because they Hold Symbolic Significance.
While the court has not yet issued a final order, it has directed the CBFC to Clarify Its Objections explicitly in the next hearing.
