India, July 11 -- What's in a name? Lots, according to the Central Board for Film Certification (CBFC). So, this august body, which has assumed the role of a censor even though its mandate is to only certify films, found the title of a Malayalam film starring Union minister Suresh Gopi, Janaki v State of Kerala, objectionable. It contended that Janaki referred to Goddess Sita, and that the title, in the context of the film's content, could hurt religious sentiments: The film charts the legal battle of a young woman character, Janaki Vidhyadharan, who takes her rapists to court. On Thursday, the film's producers told the Kerala High Court, where they had challenged the CBFC decision, that they were willing to rename the film as Janaki V v State of Kerala and mute a trial scene so that a theatrical release was possible. The CBFC originally demanded 96 cuts, but was finally satisfied with two. This case is disturbing for multiple reasons. One, the premise that CBFC invoked to deny certification was silly - and dangerous. Janaki is one of the many names of Goddess Sita, and a very common pan-Indian name. People are named after gods and goddesses, and they also undergo hardships in life. Two, CBFC's regional panel had cleared the film, which was then objected to by its apex body. The presumption of hurt among the faithful and fear of the mob can't be the criteria for film certification. This is not the first time the CBFC has acted on these lines - in 2017, it objected to the word sexy in the title Sexy Durga and forced its producers to rename the film as S Durga. When institutions prefer to censor artworks on the presumption of hurt, it has a chilling effect on art production. It emboldens the mob to enforce its writ on creative industries such as cinema, which rides on capital investment and is vulnerable to mob pressure in the absence of support from State institutions....