11-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
CBFC's overreach in ‘Janaki v/s State of Kerala' is a preemptive capitulation to the mob
It is a real-life courtroom drama that the makers of Malayalam film Janaki v/s State of Kerala did not account for: Centred on a rape survivor's pursuit of legal justice, the Suresh Gopi-Anupama Parameswaran movie, which was slated for a June 27 release, found itself ranged against the overreaching arm of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The Board refused its certification on the ground that it was inappropriate and inflammatory for a character portrayed as a sexual-violence survivor to bear a name with mythological associations, and to be cross-examined in court by a character of another faith. After legal intervention, a compromise has been reached. The filmmakers have agreed to insert an initial before the protagonist's name in exchange for only two of the 96 cuts demanded. But the episode is troubling. It signals a dangerous narrowing of artistic spaces. It is also a reminder of how the CBFC, whose remit is to classify films, not censor them, repeatedly strays into moral and political gatekeeping.
Janaki… joins a long list of films — Lipstick Under My Burkha (2016), Padmaavat (2018), and more recently, L2: Empuraan — that have faced similar interference under the pretext of preserving public order or avoiding offence. Sitaare Zameen Par was released after five changes, including the addition of a quote by the Prime Minister in the opening disclaimer. The CBFC's entanglement with identity politics — religious, regional, or patriarchal — points to a deeper institutional malaise. Over the years, the Board's role has mutated to control, often wielding its power to appease real and imagined fringe sensitivities rather than upholding and expanding spaces for artistic liberty. In trying to pre-empt hypothetical offence, it reinforces a culture where free expression is contingent on the veto of the most easily outraged. This poses a dual threat: Not only are filmmakers forced into a regressive self-censorship, as was the case with the makers of L2: Empuraan, but audiences, too, are denied mature engagement with difficult ideas. The Kerala High Court, while hearing the case, asked pertinent questions: 'Has anyone complained about the name Janaki? Whose sentiments are being hurt? Has anyone actually raised an objection?' and 'Now you will dictate to directors and artists which names they should use and which stories they should tell…''
A defining feature of a mature democracy is a cultural framework that trusts people to engage with complexity. Art thrives in discomfort, dissent, provocation and debate. The CBFC must remember its job is to classify cinema — and then get out of the way.
