The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has told the Kerala High Court that the Suresh Gopi-starrer Janaki Vs State of Kerala has been sent to the Revising Committee for further review. This submission was made in response to a petition filed by the film’s producers, Cosmos Entertainments, who accused the board of an undue delay in the certification process.

The Revising Committee is scheduled to watch the film on Thursday. The matter is due to be heard again on Friday, the same date that was originally announced as the film’s release day.

The Screening Committee had earlier viewed the film. According to the petition, the teaser of the film was approved by the CBFC three months ago. However, with final certification pending, the producers approached the High Court on Tuesday, claiming they had incurred a financial loss of Rs 80 lakh.

The producers informed the court that they had submitted the film for certification on June 12, and it was screened by the CBFC on June 18. They added that, up to this point, the board had issued no formal objections to the content of the film. Referring to news reports, the producers said that they only came to know about the CBFC’s objection to the use of the name ‘Janaki’ for a character through the media.

What the JSK team alleges and how the CBFC responds

The petitioners argued that, as per standard procedure, the Screening Committee’s recommendations are usually followed and the certificate is issued accordingly. They claimed their film was referred to the Revising Committee only on Tuesday, and questioned the rationale for such a late-stage referral.

They highlighted that the CBFC chairman has the discretionary power to send a film to a specially constituted Revising Committee, but maintained that in their case, this discretion was exercised without clear justification.

Justice N Nagaresh, who is hearing the matter, directed that the decision of the Revising Committee be submitted to the court before Friday.

The court will now assess whether the CBFC’s actions in delaying the certification—despite no formal objection—were warranted, especially when financial stakes and release timelines are involved.