Janaki” and Judicial Wisdom: A Constitutional Lens on Artistic Freedom and CBFC's Role
By Advocate Prabal Bhandari
www.prabalbhandari.com
In a moment that resonates with constitutional clarity and judicial maturity, the Kerala High Court reminded the nation this week that art is not to be shackled by arbitrary gatekeeping, especially not when the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is at stake.
The matter in question arose from a legal challenge filed by M/s Cosmos Entertainments, the production house behind the upcoming Malayalam film “JSK: Janaki v State of Kerala”, starring Union Minister Suresh Gopi. The controversy? The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) allegedly raised informal objections to the use of the name “Janaki”—claiming it refers to Goddess Sita and could, therefore, hurt religious sentiments. This objection, as presented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India, was purportedly based on the CBFC's interpretation of rules that bar names and themes “contemptuous of religion.”
The irony could not be sharper. The character in question is not a villain, not a criminal, but rather a rape survivor fighting for justice. In response, Justice N Nagaresh of the Kerala High Court made a poignant observation:
“She is the victim? If a rapist is named Rama, Krishna, Janaki, I may be able to understand. Here she is a heroine fighting for the cause of justice.”
This remark goes beyond the scope of just one film—it strikes at the heart of a larger legal and cultural debate: Can the CBFC dictate who an artist can name their characters after? Can such control co-exist with the constitutional freedoms that India proudly upholds?
The Role of CBFC: Certifier or Censor?
The CBFC, by design, is meant to be a certifying authority, not a moral adjudicator or a religious censor. However, over time, its role has often been viewed as that of a cultural watchdog, especially when objections are raised in the name of public morality or religion.
Yet, the Constitution of India is clear: freedom of speech and expression, including creative and artistic expression, is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). This right is subject only to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)—which includes concerns like public order, decency, or morality, but certainly not arbitrary and vague interpretations of religious sentiment.
In this case, no formal communication or show-cause notice was even issued by the CBFC. Instead, the production company learned of the objections through media reports—a glaring violation of natural justice. Furthermore, the CBFC had already cleared the teaser trailer of the film, bearing the same name, without objection. This raises serious questions of inconsistency, arbitrariness, and procedural irregularity.
Artistic Freedom vs Religious Sentiment: Where’s the Line?
The court rightly asked: “What is wrong with Janaki? How is it contemptuous of religion?” If we were to ban every character name that corresponds with religious figures—even when portrayed in a dignified and empowering light—we would be walking a very slippery slope.
As per settled jurisprudence, most notably in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) and S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989), freedom of speech cannot be restricted merely because it offends or annoys some people. The threshold must be actual harm or threat to public order, not subjective hurt sentiments.
In this instance, naming a rape survivor “Janaki”, if anything, is a symbolic tribute to resilience and courage, not blasphemy. Justice Nagaresh rightly rebuked the CBFC:
“That is the freedom of artists. You cannot interfere in that. It is not absolute, but you do not have a convincing reason.”
Legal Takeaway: Courts as Guardians of Free Expression
The petition filed by the production house also highlighted that the delay in issuing the censor certificate was affecting their right to trade and profession under Article 19(1)(g), and causing severe financial losses ahead of the scheduled worldwide release on June 27.
The court has now directed the Deputy Solicitor General to file a counter-affidavit explaining the CBFC’s position. This is not merely a procedural order—it is a signal that judicial scrutiny will not spare bureaucratic arbitrariness.
Final Word: Freedom Must Be Fought For
This case is a telling example of how creative freedom, while constitutionally protected, is still routinely tested by institutions meant to support, not suppress, that freedom. The judiciary’s role as a protector of rights is once again in focus. Artists, filmmakers, and the public at large must not remain silent when their freedoms are curtailed under the guise of misplaced cultural morality.
As an advocate, I firmly believe that art cannot—and should not—be censored to appease speculative sensitivities. The law protects dignity, not dogma.
For legal consultation or advice on issues related to media law, censorship, constitutional rights or litigation against arbitrary authorities, feel free to reach out.
Comments
Post a Comment