Introduction:

In the matter titled M/s Cosmos Entertainments v. The Regional Officer, CBFC and Others, WP(C) No. 23326 of 2025, the Kerala High Court presided over by Justice N. Nagaresh took a strong stance questioning the Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC) objection to the use of the name ‘Janaki’—another name for Hindu goddess Sita—in the upcoming Malayalam film ‘JSK – Janaki v/s State of Kerala’ starring Suresh Gopi, a Union Minister and well-known actor. Cosmos Entertainment, the petitioner, approached the Court challenging the delay in certification of their film, which was originally slated for theatrical release on June 27, 2025, and objecting to CBFC’s direction to remove the name ‘Janaki’ from the title and dialogues.

Arguments:

The petitioner’s counsel, led by Anand B. Menon along with Haris Beeran, Azhar Assees, and Nabil Khader, argued that the protagonist Janaki is a survivor of sexual assault fighting for justice in a court of law and is portrayed as a heroic figure, not as a negative character. Therefore, naming her Janaki does not defile the sanctity of the goddess Sita or offend any religious sentiment. They pointed out that CBFC had approved the film’s teaser three months ago, which prominently displayed the title, and argued that the subsequent show cause notice from the Revising Committee asking for the removal of the name Janaki from the title and dialogues indicates a lack of application of mind by the CBFC. They stressed that delaying certification without valid reasons infringes the producers’ rights under Article 19(1)(a) guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression and Article 19(1)(g) protecting the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business, causing irreparable financial loss and arbitrary restraint on artistic creativity. Further, they cited examples of popular Indian films like ‘Seeta Aur Geeta’ and ‘Ram Lakhan’ named after deities, arguing that Indian cinema has a rich tradition of characters with divine names that do not necessarily intend to ridicule or insult religion.

On the other hand, counsel for the CBFC, Deputy Solicitor General of India O.M. Shalina, submitted that the film’s current title violates Guidelines 2(xii) and 6 of the Guidelines framed by the Central Government under Section 5B(2) of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which prohibit content that could hurt religious sentiments or create communal disharmony. CBFC contended that since Janaki is an epithet of Sita, a revered Hindu goddess, the use of the name in a film addressing sensitive issues like sexual assault could lead to misconceptions or hurt religious feelings. The CBFC’s concern, according to the Deputy SGI, was not with the character’s positive or negative portrayal, but with the possibility of adverse interpretation by audiences who may find the use of a sacred name in such a context objectionable. The Board also defended its show cause notice stating that certification of a teaser does not bind the Board regarding the full film, as teasers are brief promotional materials and final certification requires a holistic review of the entire film.

Judgement:

However, Justice N. Nagaresh questioned the CBFC’s logic and found its objection prima facie unsustainable, observing that in India, the majority of personal names are derived from religious figures across communities, including names like Krishnan, Kesavan, Anthony, or Ahammed. The Court orally remarked that if CBFC’s argument were accepted, it would severely constrain artistic freedom and scriptwriting, as artists could not use any name with religious significance. Justice Nagaresh specifically noted, “She is not a rapist. If a rapist is named Rama, Krishna, Janaki, then I can understand. At least we can appreciate that you should not name that character with God’s name. Here, she is a heroine of the film, fighting for the cause of justice.” The Court emphasized that CBFC cannot dictate filmmakers on what names should be used or what stories should be told, highlighting that artistic freedom is an essential component of the fundamental right to free expression. The Court also pointed to the lack of consistency in CBFC’s approach, questioning why the teaser was cleared if the title itself was objectionable and finding it problematic that a show cause notice was issued only after the film’s completion and teaser release, which had been approved without objection three months prior. On perusing the show cause notice, the Court orally directed the Deputy SGI to file a detailed statement justifying the Board’s stance with clear and cogent reasons explaining how the use of the name Janaki violates the statutory guidelines, cautioning against arbitrary exercise of power under the Cinematograph Act. The Court underscored that while reasonable restrictions can be imposed to maintain public order and morality, there must be convincing evidence of likely harm or actual contempt towards religious or racial groups before curbing artistic liberty. The matter has been posted for further consideration on Wednesday, July 2, 2025, with the Court seeking a comprehensive explanation from the CBFC on why the name ‘Janaki’ must be dropped, if at all, and indicating its intent to carefully balance respect for religious sentiments with constitutional protections of free speech and artistic freedom.