Blogs
on June 22, 2025
Thiruvananthapuram, June 22: The Malayalam film industry has been rocked by a fresh censorship controversy involving veteran actor and Union Minister Suresh Gopi’s much-anticipated film Janaki vs State of Kerala. Slated for release on June 27, the film has encountered an unexpected roadblock after the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) reportedly demanded changes to its title and the protagonist’s name, citing concerns over religious sensitivity.
Directed by Pravin Narayanan, Janaki vs State of Kerala is a courtroom drama that tells the story of Janaki, a survivor of abuse, seeking justice against systemic apathy. The film, which had earlier been cleared with a U/A 13+ rating and no cuts, is now facing unofficial pressure from the CBFC to alter key elements of its identity. The board has not issued a formal directive but has communicated—reportedly through oral channels—that the name “Janaki” may be problematic due to its association with the mythological character Sita, revered in Hindu tradition.
The suggestion has sparked immediate backlash. Critics argue that such an interpretation is regressive and places unwarranted religious constraints on creative expression. “Janaki is a common name in Kerala and across India,” said B. Unnikrishnan, general secretary of the Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA). “If we begin censoring characters based on religious associations, storytelling itself will suffer. This goes against the very fabric of a democratic and pluralistic society.”
The filmmakers have refused to comply with the CBFC’s request. In a strongly worded social media post, director Pravin Narayanan stated: “We will not change the title. Our film is a work of fiction that deals with real societal issues. The name Janaki is not meant to offend—it is meant to represent strength, resilience, and the pursuit of justice.”
Support for the filmmakers has been pouring in from across the Malayalam film industry. Actors, directors, writers, and cinephiles have raised concerns about the increasing tendency of censorship authorities to overreach. “Today it’s a title. Tomorrow it could be a costume or a background score. Where does this end?” asked a prominent screenwriter on X (formerly Twitter).
At the heart of the issue lies a larger debate: the role of the CBFC in a democratic society. Established to certify films based on age-appropriateness and content sensitivity, the CBFC has often been accused of functioning as a moral police rather than a certifying authority. This case, many feel, exemplifies that trend. The absence of a written order further complicates matters for the filmmakers, leaving them in a grey zone of uncertainty.
Adding to the complexity is the presence of Suresh Gopi—a sitting Member of Parliament and Minister of State—in the lead role. While Gopi has refrained from making a direct statement on the issue, the overlap between his political identity and artistic work has lent the controversy a charged political undertone. Some observers suggest that the sensitivity surrounding the film may be heightened due to his dual role, though no direct link has been established.
The film’s storyline, centered around a woman taking on the state in her fight for justice, touches upon legal and institutional lapses—a theme that may also be contributing to discomfort among certain quarters. However, the filmmakers maintain that the narrative is rooted in empathy and intends to provoke constructive dialogue, not controversy.
The delay in the film’s release has triggered protests and calls for solidarity from within the industry. FEFKA and several other film bodies have announced their intention to stage demonstrations and explore legal remedies. “This is not just about one film. It is about preserving the freedom of artistic expression guaranteed by our Constitution,” Unnikrishnan emphasized.
Civil rights groups and legal experts have also voiced concern over the implications of the CBFC’s stance. “Censorship must be transparent, accountable, and consistent with constitutional values,” said a retired judge from the Kerala High Court. “Oral directives have no place in a rule-based system.”
Meanwhile, fans and film lovers await clarity on whether Janaki vs State of Kerala will hit screens as originally envisioned. The controversy has not only brought attention to the film itself but has reignited discussions about the balance between art and authority, faith and freedom.
As the standoff unfolds, one thing is clear: the battle over Janaki goes far beyond a name. It is a litmus test for the space that Indian cinema can occupy in a society that is both diverse and democratic.
*AI edited