The Malayalam film JSK: Janaki v/s State of Kerala, starring Union Minister Suresh Gopi, was subjected to a court fight after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) refused to grant it a censor certificate. The major grievance of CBFC was that the title “Janaki” had been employed for the role of a rape victim, alleging that “Janaki” is another name for Goddess Sita, who is revered in Hinduism. The Board subsequently sought 96 cuts and changes, on the premise that the film would be offensive to religious sentiments and could even cause communal disturbances, given the plot of the film with the characters of various religions on sensitive trial scenes.
With these demands in hand, producers of the film, Cosmos Entertainments, approached the Kerala High Court. They alleged that the refusal of the CBFC was causing them to lose money and violating their constitutional freedom of occupation and speech. In doing so, the CBFC also revised its list of demands, restricting itself to making just two changes: altering the subtitle to include the full name of the protagonist and muffling the speaking of the name “Janaki” in one court scene. The producers readily incorporated these changes, making way for a settlement.
Rationale
The reason given by the CBFC was the protection of religious feelings and maintenance of public order. The Board had argued that using the name “Janaki” to describe a rape victim, especially where cross-examination by an attorney from a different religion was involved, would amount to insulting and provocative. The CBFC contended that it had an obligation to exclude material that might have the potential of disrupting communal harmony, drawing an argument of reference to the standard of the “average moral man” in order to uphold its stand.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
On the other hand, the producers argued that their creative purpose was not to hurt or outrage but to offer a socially relevant story of a rape victim’s pursuit of justice. They claimed that the name “Janaki” had been chosen as a character’s name without any religious meaning. The producers argued that the CBFC censorial objections were excessive and subjective, infringing their constitutional rights and causing unnecessary delays and loss of money.
Notable Arguments
The CBFC’s argument was important for its detailed presentation and elaboration of the risk of communal and religious discord. The Board noted the holiness of the name “Janaki” and the risk that the story of the film, with interfaith court drama, posed to inflame passions. Their use of the “average moral man” test and their insistence on the effect on society rather than merely on the intent of the filmmaker evidenced the broader regulatory interests.
Conversely, the producers’ arguments rested on constitutional freedom. The producers invoked Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, highlighting that creative expression should not be limited by any subjective judgment of religious sentiments. Their stance was an extension of the ongoing battle between artistic liberty and regulatory oversight in India.
Judgment of the Court
Justice N Nagaresh of the Kerala High Court went so far as to view the movie and was unable to find any natural reason for a victim of rape seeking justice to be named “Janaki.” The court criticized the CBFC for interfering too much and restricting free speech and artistic freedom. The court observed the filmmaker’s offer to undertake the two agreed modifications: altering the subtitle to provide the full name of the character and silencing the name “Janaki” in courtroom scene. The court then ordered the CBFC to issue the censor certificate within three days from the date of receiving the revised film, which would accelerate the process.
Legal Implications / Analysis
The Kerala High Court ruling has great legal consequences. It reiterates the balancing act performed by the judiciary between censorship control and constitutional freedom of expression. In demanding minimum, reasonable modifications and protecting the rights of the filmmakers, the court provided a precedent on how similar conflicts in the future could be resolved. The decision is contrary to the CBFC’s initial stricter policy, insisting on proportionality and context in making censorship decisions.
This case is also a reminder of the need for regulatory bodies to function in the open and within the terms of their statutory mandate, and not to impose subjective guidelines which can strangle creativity. For this set of filmmakers, the verdict is a reminder that considerateness of religious and communal sentiment is fine, but not at the cost of freedom of creativity or the right to tell socially relevant stories. The High Court’s intervention is used here to demonstrate that censorship must be applied with caution and within constitutional limits so that fundamental rights are not ridden roughshod by unwarranted fears of inciting public disorder.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s direction to CBFC to grant a censor certificate to JSK: Janaki v/s State of Kerala with such minimal changes is a landmark reassertion of creative freedom and rule of law. In overruling irrational and subjective requirements of censorship, the court has given impetus to the principle that regulatory agencies must function within the ambit of reasonableness and constitutional protection. This decision not only makes it possible to release the film but also sets a directional precedent for future cases where there is intersection of artistic freedom and regulatory interests. Lastly, the decision balances the need to uphold communal and religious feelings against the need to uphold freedom of expression, and it is a good one for both the film industry and the broader cause of Indian civil liberties.
Sources
- The Hindu, ‘Kerala HC orders CBFC to grant censor certificate to Suresh Gopi film Janaki’ (3 July 2024)
- LiveLaw, ‘Kerala High Court Orders CBFC To Grant Censor Certificate to Suresh Gopi’s ‘Janaki’’
(3 July 2024) https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/kerala-high-court-orders-cbfc-to-grant-censor-certificate-to-suresh-gopi-janaki-248684
- Bar & Bench, ‘Kerala High Court orders CBFC to grant censor certificate to Suresh Gopi movie Janaki’ (3 July 2024)
2 thoughts on “Kerala High Court Upholds Artistic Freedom in ‘Janaki’ Film Censorship Dispute”