New Delhi: The Central Board of Film Certification’s (CBFC’s) objection to the title of the film Janaki vs State of Kerala stemmed from a scene where the protagonist is asked “harrowing”, “provocative” and “humiliating” questions by a lawyer belonging to another religious community. The film tells the story of a rape survivor named Janaki, another name for the Hindu goddess Sita.
These questions posed to the character during a scene depicting her cross-examination after she has been raped, have the tendency to disrupt public order and offend religious sentiments, the CBFC contended while seeking a change in the movie title. She is asked whether she watches pornographic films, whether she uses drugs to enhance pleasure, whether she has a boyfriend, and if she was pregnant prior to being sexually assaulted.
Taking strong exception to these questions posed to the character bearing “Goddess Sita’s” name, the CFBC in its affidavit before the Kerala High Court submitted that its opposition is not based on trivial grounds, but a profound concern regarding a film’s narrative content wherein the character is shown as enduring multiple traumatic and uncomfortable circumstances while seeking justice.
The Kerala HC was hearing a petition filed by the producer of Janaki vs State of Kerala, challenging the CBFC’s refusal to grant it a release certificate unless the title is changed and the word Janaki is muted throughout the film. The movie, which stars BJP minister and actor Suresh Gopi, was initially scheduled for release on 27 June.
The certification board in its affidavit also expressed concern about another scene from the film in which the character is shown to be aided by a man from a different religious community. Seeing this as a religious dichotomy in the treatment of a character with a name associated with Sita, the board felt this depiction has the “potential to inflame communal tensions and create divisive narratives between religious group”.
The portrayal, according to the board affidavit, is a deliberate misappropriation of a revered deity’s name.
Though the affidavit was placed before the Kerala HC, which heard the case Tuesday, the document was not taken up for consideration after the court was told that the CBFC was ready to greenlight the film for release if the producer changed the title from Janaki vs State of Kerala to ‘Janaki V’ and mute the name during the cross-examination scene in the movie.
Appearing for the movie producer, advocate Haris Beeran agreed. The CBFC’s counsel Abhinav Chandrachud assured the court that once the revised version of the movie is submitted, the board would grant it censor certification within three days.
What CBFC affidavit said
The CBFC’s 22-page affidavit gave elaborate reasons for the board’s refusal to give it a censor certificate. It said that “Sita holds profound religious significance in the Ramayana” and is “revered for her devotion to Lord Rama, spiritual dedication and her sacrifice in abandoning a comfortable life to accompany her husband during his 14-year-old forest exile in accordance with Rajya Dharma”.
It accused the producers of deliberately appropriating the name of Goddess Janaki/Sita for their lead character with the “intention of exploiting and distorting her sacred identity”.
“Producers are aware that the name of the goddess Janaki holds deep reverence in the collective consciousness of the masses and have therefore intentionally chosen this title to capitalise on her religious significance,” the board submitted in its affidavit, insisting that the film’s release in its preset form would set a dangerous precedent and open a “Pandora’s Box” for future productions.
The board also felt that the film will embolden other movie producers to appropriate sacred religious names for characters in “similarly inappropriate and offensive subject matter, thereby systematically undermining religious sentiments across communities and posing a serious threat to public order.”
To the producer’s contention that their film is not the first one where a character is named after a goddess, the board drew a distinction between the ones released previously and the film currently in question. In none of those previous films was the sacred name associated with sexual violence or systemic injustice, it argued.
Stating that freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, the CBFC contended that the certification process is a “careful balance between creative freedom and regulatory oversight”. While it safeguards a filmmaker’s rights through a multi-tier review mechanism, the broader public interest is protected through the application of established guidelines and constitutional principles, it added.
The CBFC accepted that it had given clearance to the teaser, while clarifying that the same cannot be a ground to grant clearance to the movie in entirety.
It also advised the court to exercise judicial restraint when it is called upon to interfere with the decision of a specialised statutory body, particularly those entrusted with domain-specific expertise.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
😠🤜🏻😞
This is misogyny in the guise of tradition and religious sentiments that a woman getting assaulted is her fault. These braindead fanatics think that a raped woman is impure and she was asking for an assault. The purpose of art is to tell the truth no matter who feels offended and here there’s nothing offensive in the first place, they are seeing things which are not there. The state is encouraging the uncouth behaviour – that a woman is the property of her husband and if she’s touched inappropriately then she’s to be discarded . These garden variety spineless misogynists will never consider women as equal, there’s a reason why they address women as ” Mataye, Behene, Betiya ” as if the woman doesn’t have the identity of her own and is no more than a cattle known by her owner. If they are so worried about religious sentiments getting hurt then why don’t they make the country safe for women , introduce sex education right from school and sensitise the society. They won’t do that – they will keep playing the dangerous game of distraction. In a week there are 2 reported dowry deaths in one of our best governed state i.e. Tamilnadu , it is unsettling what would be happening in the worst governed states . The entire circus just because the rape victim shared the name of a mythological entity and so no one but the self appointed custodians of religion will decide how to tell her story is tragic and comical.