Bollywood stars call the shots. Their word often becomes the rule. But can they also be shown the door—or simply "banned"?
As it turns out, the answer is yes.
Actor Ranveer Singh is now effectively facing "boycott" from around 4 lakh affiliated members of the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) after the major Mumbai-based film workers' union issued a non-cooperation directive against the actor over his last-minute exit from Don 3.
That diktat from FWICE expectedly stunned the film fraternity. But it's also sparked a bigger conversation about the "callous nature of stars"—and how the whims of stars can make or break livelihoods and cost the industry a fortune.
Even though this mess is technically a dispute between one actor and one production house, another question is in focus: can Bollywood move past its relationship‑based culture and start taking contracts and accountability seriously?
How Did it Come to This?
The iconic dialogue from Don goes—"Don ko pakadna mushkil hi nahin, namumkin hai." Ironically though, Ranveer, who was set to be the franchise's newest Don, has found himself caught in the real-world clash with Farhan Akhtar's Excel Entertainment for months now.
After it was first announced in 2023, the film ran into scripting delays, scheduling complications, and shifting timelines for over two years.
The delay was compounded after Ranveer and Farhan ran into a "creative dispute". Earlier this year, Ranveer reportedly became unhappy with the screenplay and the direction the film was taking. Three weeks before the crew was scheduled to leave for the shoot, the actor decided to exit.
Multiple sources, however, tell The Quint the fallout was due to the actor demanding a fee hike after the gargantuan successes of the ‘Dhurandhar’ films.
According to FWICE Chief Advisor Ashoke Pandit, Farhan filed a complaint with the federation on 11 April after attempts at mediation through the Producers' Guild allegedly failed. Excel Entertainment submitted audited records of pre-production expenses incurred—including overseas travel arrangements for over 200 crew members, hotel bookings, and location recce costs allegedly amounting to losses between Rs 40 crore and Rs 45 crore.
The matter when, in response to the summons, Ranveer's secretary reportedly emailed FWICE, saying they did not have jurisdiction over the dispute, and offered to meet the body on the actor’s behalf.
Ranveer's appearance before the federation has since become a bone of contention, too.
Speaking to The Quint, writer and producer Anjum Rajabali, who's also a senior activist of the Screenwriters Association, says, “It’s not below anyone’s dignity to present themselves before the union. If they have invited you to have a dialogue, I think it’s important to comply."
"Don't lower your position or your dignity by asking why should you be present."Anjum Rajabali
Pandit had told the media, “When a federation invites you for a discussion, you cannot simply say it is not our domain. We know our jurisdiction,” adding that affiliated workers won't work with Ranveer till he meets with the federation.
What Power Does FWICE Even Have?
According to Priyanka Khimani, Founder and Managing Partner at Khimani & Associates, an entertainment law firm, FWICE’s directive against Ranveer is not equivalent to a legal injunction, a statutory ban, or an adjudicated restraint.
It is instead an internal directive to FWICE’s affiliated unions and members, and it cannot, and does not, legally prohibit Ranveer from working, or prohibit producers from engaging him.
At the heart of the issue, she says, is a contractual dispute between Ranveer and Excel Entertainment—something only a court or arbitral tribunal can conclusively determine. Whether there was a binding contract, breach, or recoverable damages is for a court or arbitral tribunal to decide.
"If FWICE were to coerce members or enforce the ‘ban’ against Ranveer, it would be violative of his fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution."Priyanka Khimani
The distinction between industry pressure and legal authority is important because, while FWICE may not have statutory powers, those within the industry claim these bodies still wield enormous influence.
Rajabali describes FWICE as a “quasi-judicial” industry body.
He explains, “Technically, it may not have legal jurisdiction, but yes, the members are affiliated to the federation, and once you become a member of the union, by and large, the membership obligation is that you follow the resolution of the union. Since the federation has declared this, I'm afraid the rest of the affiliates would have to follow.”
Reducing the issue purely to legality misses the larger role such bodies play in maintaining industry order, he adds.
"The union is part of the industry. It’s there for the health of the industry. So, let's not unnecessarily rake up issues of jurisdiction, but actually sit across the table and encourage the culture of mutually resolving disputes rather than taking unilateral, intransigent positions."Anjum Rajabali
A Messy History of Actors Walking Out of Projects
From Kareena Kapoor Khan and Akshay Kumar to Shah Rukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan—and very recently Saif Ali Khan—actors exiting projects are not new to the industry. Stars have walked away from films over creative disagreements, scheduling conflicts, financial negotiations, or stalled productions.
Most such disputes either quietly end in recasting or are resolved internally through conversations between producers, managers, and studios.
What makes this case different is not merely the exit itself, but the fact that the matter was escalated to an industry body.
Anjum Rajabali says the Hindi film industry has spent years attempting to formalise itself through stronger accountability systems.
"The culture has become much more professional where contracts are honoured by both parties. Stars too must now accept that they cannot remain outside the purview of systems that bind other professionals within filmmaking. Nobody is above that," Rajabali tells The Quint.
Khimani believes another reason this case stands out is because producers have historically been reluctant to publicly challenge stars.
"This is one of the rare times a producer has taken a stance like this. Usually, they let it go for the sake of relationships and the fear of burning a bridge."Priyanka Khimani
Instead, producers have traditionally preferred quieter forms of retaliation when an actor has left a project—delaying other projects, pausing releases or simply choosing not to work with actors again—rather than publicly escalating disputes.
Arguing against any kind of "ban", director Anurag Kashyap, however, reveals that he has experienced unprofessionalism in Bollywood from both sides—be it an actor or a producer or, for that matter, other parties.
"Accountability conversations cannot selectively target actors while ignoring the wider culture of unprofessionalism across the industry... Producers often change actors after acquiring their dates, so do directors," he says.
In Kashyap's experience, "producers default on payments; directors bloat budgets because of time; and actors bloat budgets because of vanity and entourage. All parties, somewhere or the other, mess up."
'The Industry is Very Informal'
For many within the industry, the real story is not the directive itself—but the system that led to it. The industry has spent years trying to professionalise itself through formal contracts and union structures—which didn’t exist earlier.
Today, writers, directors and technical departments largely function within enforceable systems of accountability. If the contracts are violated, the professional can take legal action. There is accountability on both sides.
But stars, Rajabali says, still operate differently. “Unfortunately, the glaring truth that everyone knows is there's a preponderance of stars here," he tells The Quint.
"There's a certain disproportionate leverage that stars hold, because of the belief that it is the face of the star or their presence, which opens a film and makes it successful. Therefore, stars tend to have far more leverage than any other member of the filmmaking unit.”Anjum Rajabali
That imbalance, according to him, has often led producers to comply with unreasonable demands because they feel they have no alternative, allowing many stars to exploit the leverage they hold. Even when contracts are in place, actors sometimes make demands that go beyond agreed terms, putting producers under financial strain when they give in. Rajabali argues that this culture has increasingly hurt the film industry—and points to the need for stronger regulation and accountability.
But Khimani argues the informality cuts both ways, and that the industry is "allergic" to lawyers or anything legal. According to her, even major negotiations continue to happen through verbal assurances and personal understanding rather than strict contractual interpretation.
"It’s all a handshake. It’s all good faith, till it isn’t," she adds.
Actors are often discouraged from even involving lawyers in negotiations.
"If an actor says, 'I'm going to bring in my lawyer', the instant reaction is: 'Why are you bringing somebody in? We'll talk, we’ll sort it out'."Priyanka Khimani
This creates a culture where contracts often exist more as deterrents than enforceable documents.
And, this, despite the production houses themselves remain fully legally represented.
“Producers themselves frequently insist on heavily one-sided agreements in the name of company policy. Almost every producer insists on having a unilateral right to terminate for convenience, but actors are told they can’t just up and leave because producers have money riding on the project,” says Khimani.
Is This a Turning Point?
Despite allegations involving losses of tens of crores, Excel hasn’t initiated formal litigation yet.
“The industry hates litigating. They will try anything and everything but go to court. A part of this hesitation comes from how slow damage claims move through the Indian legal system. They will have to go through various steps of proceedings; there’ll be evidence, cross-examination, appeals, and that could take years before you see a single rupee in damages while paying out of pocket,” explains Khimani.
What may ultimately make this rift significant is not whether the directive succeeds, but whether it changes how seriously the industry begins to treat contracts.
Although the contracts are already structured to provide for situations like this because all contracts have indemnities, damages, what forums they would go to, what kind of litigations, is it arbitration, which court in India, etc, even then for years, actors exiting projects has been absorbed as part of the industry’s functioning—an inconvenient but accepted reality of a star-driven system.
“The outcome of this would hopefully be people becoming more mindful that one will actually enforce the contract,” Khimani hopes.
According to Rajabali, non-cooperation directives are not entirely unprecedented—they have previously been used against producers and others within the ecosystem—but disputes are usually resolved quietly through unions and mediation before matters escalate publicly.
It usually doesn't reach the federation because the individual union gets across the table and brings both parties together and resolves it. It is only when that fails does the complainant approach larger bodies.
"And no one should be above it. There is no discrimination here because of your preeminent position or because of your success record. I think in that sense, this might become a precedent. The entire industry and the unions are keenly watching."Anjum Rajabali
The Producers’ Guild of India, which is generally considered the adversarial body to the FWICE, in this particular case seems to have participated in approaching the federation, which generally doesn’t happen.
“It’s interesting that the guild seems to be supporting this, from what I understand. They have not disagreed with the directive,” says Rajabali.
(The Quint has reached out to Excel Entertainment and Ranveer Singh’s manager, giving them the opportunity to respond to the claims. However, no response had been received at the time of publication.)