Bombay High Court Puts CBFC on Notice Over 'Janki' Film Title Dispute, Citing Freedom of Expression

Mumbai, India – The ongoing tension between artistic freedom and regulatory oversight has once again entered the judicial arena, as the Bombay High Court issued a notice to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on Monday. The court's intervention comes in response to a writ petition filed by the producers of the film 'Janki', challenging the CBFC's directive to alter the film's title and the names of its lead characters. This case brings to the forefront critical questions about the scope of the CBFC's powers under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and the constitutional protection afforded to filmmakers under Article 19(1)(a).

A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Sandesh Patil has directed the CBFC to file its response by October 6, setting the stage for a significant legal examination of the board's censorship guidelines and their application. The petition, filed by M/S N Mahi Films Production, argues that the CBFC's objections are an arbitrary and unreasonable encroachment on their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

The Core of the Controversy

The dispute centers on the CBFC's objections to the film's title, 'Janki', and the names of its protagonists, 'Janki' and 'Raghuram'. The Board contends that these names, being synonymous with the revered Hindu deities Sita and Ram, could potentially hurt religious sentiments. The film, originally made in Chhattisgarhi and later dubbed in Hindi, is described as a relationship drama with action elements, starring Dilesh Sahu and Anukriti Chouhan.

According to the petition, the filmmakers had secured the CBFC's approval for the film's trailer, which was released on May 16, 2025. Subsequently, upon submitting the full feature for certification, the CBFC's Examining Committee recommended a "UA 16+" certificate on June 10, 2025, but stipulated a series of modifications. Critically, these included the demand to change the title and the lead characters' names, citing guidelines aimed at preventing offence to religious or social groups.

The filmmakers vehemently opposed these directives, contending that they constitute a form of prior restraint devoid of any cogent legal or factual reasoning.

Legal Arguments and Constitutional Stakes

Represented by Advocates Hemant Shukla and Veer Kankaria, the petitioners have mounted a robust constitutional challenge. Their plea asserts that the CBFC’s directives are an overreach of its statutory authority and a misapplication of its own guidelines.

"The objections raised by the CBFC in its notices dated June 10, 2025 and July 15, 2025 are arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsustainable in law," the plea states. "The directions for excisions and modifications as contained therein are devoid of cogent reasoning and lack any statutory foundation under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 or the Rules framed thereunder."

The petitioners argue that the CBFC has failed to consider the film's context and content, instead resorting to "generalised and baseless assumptions" about its potential to cause offence. This, they claim, amounts to a direct infringement of their right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

The Spectre of Irreparable Harm

Beyond the constitutional challenge, the petition highlights the significant and irreparable prejudice the filmmakers would suffer if forced to comply. The title and character names have already been publicised and are integral to the film's marketing and identity. Altering them at this late stage would not only result in severe financial losses but also disrupt distribution agreements and undermine the film's creative integrity.

"Compliance with such unjustified objections would not only cause severe financial loss to the Petitioner but would also undermine his creative work and destroy the substantial investment already made in the publicity and promotion of the film," the plea elaborates, underscoring that such damages cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms.

Invoking Judicial Precedent

A crucial pillar of the petitioners' case is their reliance on a recent and relevant judgment from the Kerala High Court. In M/s Cosmos Entertainments v. Regional Officer, CBFC , the court addressed a similar issue concerning the name 'Janaki'. The Kerala High Court held that compelling a filmmaker to delete or change the word 'Janaki' from a title or dialogue constitutes an unconstitutional infringement of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

This precedent provides the Bombay High Court with persuasive authority to scrutinize the CBFC’s actions. The invocation of this judgment signals a clear legal strategy to frame the CBFC's decision not as an isolated instance of caution but as part of a broader, and constitutionally suspect, pattern of moral policing.

Implications for the Film Industry and Media Law

The outcome of this case will be closely monitored by legal professionals, particularly those specializing in media and entertainment law, and the film industry at large. The court's eventual ruling could have far-reaching implications for the interpretation of the CBFC's powers.

A decision in favour of the filmmakers would reinforce the judiciary's role in protecting artistic expression from arbitrary state interference and could lead to a more nuanced application of the CBFC's guidelines. It would reaffirm the principle that the potential for offence to a segment of the population cannot be a blanket justification for prior restraint, especially when not substantiated by a clear and present danger to public order.

Conversely, should the court uphold the CBFC's decision, it might embolden the board to take a more aggressive stance on content perceived as religiously or culturally sensitive, potentially chilling creative expression and leading to increased self-censorship among filmmakers.

As the matter is set to be heard on October 6, all eyes will be on the Bombay High Court to see how it balances the delicate scales between the fundamental right to free expression and the state's interest in maintaining social and religious harmony.