Kangana Ranaut

Adhyayan Suman publicly accused Kangana of physical and psychological abuse during their former relationship, allegations that have repeatedly resurfaced in the media.

State of the evidence

Public allegations documented

Legal status — source text

No criminal conviction established concerning these allegations

Attribution

Disputed personal allegations

Kangana called certain young protesters and young women "Generation Gutter", accusing them of abusing their freedom. The remarks prompted a strong reaction, complaints in Lucknow and Agra, and legal proceedings. The controversy also triggered a public exchange with Baba Ramdev.

State of the evidence

Posts, backlash, complaints and proceedings documented

Legal status — source text

Complaint before an MP/MLA court in Agra; no conviction established

Attribution

Direct personal responsibility for the remarks

Since 2019, Kangana and her associates have called Taapsee Pannu a "sasti copy", and the two actresses have exchanged numerous criticisms. The dispute was reignited in August 2026.

State of the evidence

Public exchanges documented

Legal status — source text

No central legal proceedings

Attribution

Responsibility for repeated verbal attacks

Javed Akhtar sued Kangana for defamation following statements implicating him in alleged pressure; Kangana initiated counter-proceedings.

State of the evidence

Mutual complaints and settlement documented

Legal status — source text

Cases withdrawn and closed following mediation

Attribution

Responsibility for disputed statements

Kangana shared a message incorrectly identifying Mahinder/Mohinder Kaur as another activist and suggesting that she could be hired to protest for payment. Kaur initiated defamation proceedings.

State of the evidence

Complaint and refusals to quash documented

Legal status — source text

Trial maintained; bail granted; no final conviction established

Attribution

Personal responsibility for a published message

Emergency drew objections from Sikh groups, including the SGPC, which criticised certain historical portrayals. Legal challenges and pressure delayed certification; the CBFC requested several modifications.

State of the evidence

Complaints, notices, litigation and CBFC decisions documented

Legal status — source text

Film certified following modifications; no personal conviction

Attribution

Editorial responsibility as director, producer and performer

Journalist and author Coomi Kapoor sent a legal notice to Manikarnika Films and Netflix, claiming that contractual commitments had been breached and historical inaccuracies had damaged her reputation.

State of the evidence

Legal notice and announcement of action documented

Legal status — source text

Alleged dispute; no final decision establishing wrongdoing

Attribution

Alleged production responsibility

Kangana accused Aditya Pancholi of abuse and violence during their past relationship. Pancholi and Zarina Wahab disputed her claims and initiated or threatened various legal actions.

State of the evidence

Mutual allegations and proceedings documented

Legal status — source text

Conflicting accounts; no basis for treating guilt as established

Attribution

Disputed personal allegations

Kangana claimed that the farm protests had seen extreme violence and that a scenario similar to Bangladesh could have occurred without strong leadership. The BJP stated that her remarks did not represent its position.

State of the evidence

Statements and party disavowal documented

Legal status — source text

No central legal proceedings

Attribution

Personal responsibility as an MP for a position not authorised by the party

Kangana called for the reinstatement of the three repealed farm laws, prompting a further reaction from the BJP.

State of the evidence

Statement, disavowal and withdrawal documented

Legal status — source text

No legal proceedings

Attribution

Personal responsibility for a political proposal

Kangana stated that Subhas Chandra Bose was India's first Prime Minister, prompting ridicule and historical corrections.

State of the evidence

Statement and public corrections documented

Legal status — source text

No legal proceedings

Attribution

Personal responsibility for the assertion

Following her Filmfare Awards nomination, Kangana announced that she intended to sue the magazine, which she accused of corrupt and unfair practices. Filmfare withdrew her nomination and reserved the right to take action.

State of the evidence

Kangana's statements and official response documented

Legal status — source text

No final judgment identified

Attribution

Personal responsibility for the public allegations

The conflict between Kangana and Hrithik Roshan erupted following statements about an alleged relationship. Both parties exchanged legal notices and disputed the authenticity or meaning of emails; a cyber investigation followed.

State of the evidence

Legal notices, complaint and investigation documented

Legal status — source text

No conviction of Kangana; investigation without conclusive criminal evidence against her

Attribution

Strongly disputed personal allegations

Following a court order, Mumbai police registered an FIR against Kangana and her sister Rangoli over posts and statements accused of inciting communal hatred.

State of the evidence

FIR and proceedings documented

Legal status — source text

Investigation contested; no final conviction established

Attribution

Alleged criminal responsibility for her posts and interviews

Twitter permanently suspended Kangana's account following posts concerning post-election violence in West Bengal, citing repeated violations of its rules on hateful and abusive conduct.

State of the evidence

Platform sanction documented

Legal status — source text

Private platform decision, not a judicial conviction

Attribution

Personal responsibility for her posts

Kangana stated that the independence gained in 1947 was "bheek" and that India had experienced its true freedom in 2014, prompting calls for her Padma Shri to be withdrawn.

State of the evidence

Statement and reactions documented

Attribution

Personal responsibility for the statements

Mumbai police registered an FIR following Kangana's posts, which were accused of linking farm protests to Khalistani separatists and offending the Sikh community.

State of the evidence

FIR documented

Legal status — source text

Investigation registered; no final conviction established

Attribution

Personal responsibility for her posts

Author Ashish Kaul accused Kangana of using elements of his work on Queen Didda, previously sent by email, to announce Manikarnika Returns. An FIR was registered.

State of the evidence

Complaint and court-ordered FIR documented

Legal status — source text

No final conviction for plagiarism established

Attribution

Alleged responsibility for using materials previously provided

Kangana compared Mumbai to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir following a dispute with Shiv Sena officials and the Mumbai police, triggering a nationwide political confrontation.

State of the evidence

Statements and public backlash documented

Attribution

Direct responsibility for the statement

The BMC demolished parts of Kangana's office, citing unauthorised construction, amid the political confrontation with Shiv Sena.

State of the evidence

BMC order and judgment documented

Legal status — source text

Bombay High Court: action set aside, conduct found to be tainted by malice

Attribution

Kangana is the target and petitioner

In a tweet about the farm laws, Kangana compared people she said were spreading misinformation to "terrorists". A Tumakuru court ordered an FIR to be registered, which was subsequently done.

State of the evidence

Complaint, court order and FIR documented

Legal status — source text

FIR registered; no final conviction established

Attribution

Direct personal responsibility for the tweet

The production of Manikarnika was marked by a dispute with Krish and Sonu Sood's departure as Kangana took over part of the directing duties; Krish accused her of excessively rewriting, re-editing and claiming credit for the film.

State of the evidence

Public disputes documented

Legal status — source text

No central criminal offence

Attribution

Direct creative and professional responsibility

Following a verbal altercation with a journalist at a promotional event, the Entertainment Journalists' Guild of India announced a boycott and demanded an apology.

State of the evidence

Altercation and boycott documented

Legal status — source text

No central criminal proceedings

Attribution

Personal responsibility for the public exchange

Technicians and workers associated with Manikarnika claimed that certain amounts owed to them had not been paid, and professional associations intervened.

State of the evidence

Workers' claims documented

Legal status — source text

No final personal conviction identified

Attribution

Alleged production responsibility, not an established personal debt

Before its release, groups in Rajasthan claimed that Manikarnika would depict a romantic relationship between Rani Lakshmibai and a British officer.

State of the evidence

Public protests documented

Legal status — source text

No personal wrongdoing or disputed scene ultimately established

Attribution

Director and actress at the centre of a controversy over historical representation

Screenwriter Apurva Asrani accused Kangana and the Simran team of unfairly changing or promoting the writing credits to benefit the actress.

State of the evidence

Allegations and statements documented

Legal status — source text

No final judicial decision identified

Ketan Mehta claimed to have spent years developing a project about Rani Lakshmibai with Kangana before she announced Manikarnika with another team.

State of the evidence

Public allegation documented

Legal status — source text

No established conviction for misappropriation

Attribution

Allegation of taking over a project