Why Should They Change Name Of A Character?: Kerala High Court Questions CBFC For Objecting To Use Of Name 'Janaki' In Movie 'Janaki v State Of Kerala'
|The Kerala High Court today questioned the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) after it issued a show cause notice to the producers of the movie "Janaki v State Of Kerala", starring Union Minister Suresh Gopi, for use of the name "Janaki" in the title.
The producers of the movie, Cosmos Entertainments, had approached the High Court, filing a Writ Petition, being aggrieved by the delay in granting it certification for the release of the movie. The Court had earlier asked the CBFC to respond to the plea.
Today, when it was submitted on behalf of the Board that it is calling upon the producers of the movie to change the name 'Janaki' in the title, the Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh asked, "Why should that modification be made? Why should somebody change the name of a character?"
The Court was told by the Board that the name 'Janaki', which is a name of Sita, is being used for religious purposes.
The Court asked, "What religious purpose, Counsel? We have cinemas by the name 'Seeta Aur Geeta', Janaki is Seeta. Nothing happened. No problem. Nobody has any complaint. We have a film named 'Ram Lakhan'. Nobody has any complaint. How come for 'Janaki' there is some complaint?"
When the case was taken up, It was submitted by Advocate Alka Warrier appearing for the Board that they have been issued a show cause notice stating that the film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibitino with an endorsement of caution that the question as to whether any child below the age of 16 years may be allowed to see the film should be considered by parents or guardians of the child, provided the producers carry out the exitions/modifications in the film listed in the annexure to the notice.
"In the annexure, the modification which has been listed is to change the name of the lead character, Janaki, from the title and dialogue, wherever it occurs. That is the modification which has been directed", she submitted.
She submitted that, as per instructions, it is in violation of Guidelines 2 (11) and 6 of the Cinematography Guidelines and that the Guideline concerned visuals or words contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups.
The Court then perused the guideline and remarked, "How will it apply to this? Janaki is a common name used everywhere. How will it apply? It does not belong to any particular caste".
That is when the Counsel submitted that the issue relating to religion will arise.
The Counsel for the board submitted, "The film deals with mature content. The second issue is that it includes sexual crimes against women and uses of strong sexual language and words denoting women. That is the basic issue considered by the CBFC. They are using this name (Janaki) to denote the same."
The Court then asked, "So is it that you dont want it with the name of Janaki, but it (content) is okay with some other name?"
Advocate Haris Beeran appering for the produceers of the film referred to Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act 1952 and submitted that "the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or involves defamation or contempt of court or is likely to incite the commission of any offence" are the only guiding factors as per the provision.
The Court responded by saying, "Decency or morality will apply; that is what they are submitting".
Beeran responded that the teaser of the same film has been certified by the same board, with the same title.
The Court then said, "Certification of the teaser is only with regard to the content of that teaser".
Beeran then submitted that the release date will have to be deferred every time a show cause notice is issued. The Court responded by saying that it is the first time that a show cause notice has been issued and that producers should respond to the same.
Haris Beeran then submitted that based on Rule 24 and Rule 26, the only power of the Revising Committee is to issue a certificate with cuts, if any, which can then be challenged and that it does not provide for issuing any show cause notice.
The Court then adjourned the matter to June 30 for the Board to produce the show cause notice issued today to the producers.
Cause Title: M/s. Cosmos Entertainments v. The Regional Officer (WP(C) 23326/ 2025)