“Naming An Artistic Piece Is The Prerogative And Right Of The Artist” Kerala High Court Records CBFC’s Willingness To Certify ‘JSK: Janaki V. State Of Kerala’ If Title Subtitle & One Scene Are Altered

While hearing the matter, a Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh remarked, “Naming an artistic piece is the prerogative and right of the artist.”

Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud appeared for the CBFC, while Advocate Haris Beeran appeared for the Petitioners, the producers of the film.

Chandrachud informed the Court that the CBFC had dropped its earlier proposal for 96 cuts. He submitted, “We are not even saying change the title of the film. The main title, in bold letters, is J.S.K.… The subtitle is in small font. The only request is to make that modification.” The Court was told that the subtitle “Janaki v. State of Kerala” may be replaced with “V. Janaki” or “Janaki V.” for certification to be granted.

The CBFC also submitted, “In the subject film, when the lead character who is named after Goddess Sita/Janaki is raped, she is then aided by a man belonging to one particular religious community and is cross-examined and asked harrowing questions by a person belonging to another religious community.”

On this basis, the CBFC requested that the name “Janaki” be muted in the cross-examination scene between timestamp 1:06:45 and 1:08:32. The Bench asked, “The word Janaki is used in a scene where cross-examination is being done, isn’t it?” and remarked, “Wherever Janaki comes, you have to mute it according to you.”

Chandrachud cited past instances of last-minute title changes, stating, “There was a film… a 400 crore film called Padmavati… the title was digitally changed to Padmavat. So really, in today’s digital era, it can be done… There was another blockbuster film called Billu Barber. The day before release, it was changed to Billu.”

Beeran, on behalf of the Producer, submitted that the subtitle had been used in all promotional materials for over three months and any change would result in cost and logistical issues. “This trailer has been there since three months. They have invested a lot of money for advertisement… To change it and re-submit will require a lot of technical problems and money also,” he submitted.

The CBFC assured the Court that once the two changes were made and the revised version submitted, the certificate would be granted within three days. The Court recorded, “The standing counsel for CBFC further submitted that if these changes are made and the edited version is resubmitted, a certificate can be granted to the Petitioners within a further period of three days.”

Earlier, on July 2, the Court had directed a private screening of the film to be arranged in Ernakulam. The direction came after CBFC sought time to respond to allegations raised in a fresh petition. Beeran opposed any delay, stating, “This is a way of delaying. Every day's delay is hurting me.”

On June 30, the Bench had sharply questioned the CBFC’s objections to the name “Janaki”. It asked, “Now you will dictate to the directors and artists, which name they should give, which story they should use?” When the CBFC cited its guidelines, the Court remarked, “That reason is prima facie unsustainable. Is Janaki a word contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups? In India, most of the names are attributed to god — whether Hindus, Muslims or Christians.”

The matter will be heard next on Wednesday.