Deepika Padukone Likes Post Calling Out ‘Misogyny’ Amid Renewed Spirit Row With Sandeep Reddy Vanga

THE CELEBRITY HOUR

Deepika Padukone appears to have made her clearest public gesture yet in the long-running debate around her exit from Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s Spirit.

On August 22, multiple publications documented that the actor had liked an Instagram carousel by journalist Janvi Manchanda that criticised the renewed scrutiny over Padukone’s reported contractual demands. The post argued that requests such as profit participation are common among male stars and described the backlash against Padukone in explicitly gendered terms.

The gesture came just after Spirit producer Pranay Reddy Vanga Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s brother publicly revisited negotiations with Padukone and alleged that remuneration, scheduling and a requested 10 per cent profit share contributed to the deal falling through. He also accused her side of leaking private discussions once the producers began considering other actors. Those are Pranay’s allegations, not independently established facts.

The latest development does not amount to a detailed statement from Padukone about those specific claims. But by liking a post that directly challenges the way the dispute has been framed, she has publicly aligned herself with criticism of the gendered commentary surrounding it.

What did the Instagram post say?

The carousel shared by Janvi Manchanda focused on Pranay Vanga’s claim that Padukone had sought 10 per cent of Spirit’s profits.

Its caption questioned why such a demand became headline material when profit-sharing arrangements involving male stars have long existed in the film business. One slide went further, framing the backlash as a combination of “male ego”, sexism and misogyny after a woman declined a deal.

It would be inaccurate, however, to put the carousel’s language directly into Padukone’s mouth. She liked the post; she did not personally publish the words “misogyny couldn’t handle a woman’s no” in the material reviewed by The Celebrity Hour.

What Pranay Reddy Vanga has now claimed

The controversy resurfaced after Pranay discussed the failed negotiations in an interview with NTV Telugu.

According to his account, there were several issues behind the casting not working out, including remuneration and working hours. He then alleged that Padukone asked for a 10 per cent share of the film’s profits and that the overall economics no longer worked for the production.

Pranay further claimed that once the team began exploring other casting options, confidential discussions about the story and character were leaked.

That accusation echoes a public post Sandeep Reddy Vanga made in May 2025 after Triptii Dimri had been announced as the film’s female lead. Without naming Padukone, Vanga referred to an “unsaid NDA”, accused an unnamed actor of disclosing story details and criticised what he called “dirty PR games.”

Because Vanga did not identify Padukone by name in that post, responsible reporting should describe the connection as widely inferred rather than explicitly confirmed by him.

Triptii Dimri’s casting is the part that is officially confirmed

Whatever occurred during the negotiations with Padukone, the production’s eventual casting decision is not in dispute.

In May 2025, T-Series officially announced Triptii Dimri as the female lead opposite Prabhas in Spirit. The production company described the film as an ambitious “pan-world” project and named Bhushan Kumar, Sandeep Reddy Vanga and Pranay Reddy Vanga as producers.

Triptii separately shared the announcement on her own Instagram account and thanked Vanga for trusting her with the role. Vanga also posted that the female lead for his film was now official.

This is an important distinction: Deepika’s participation was extensively reported and negotiations clearly occurred, but Triptii Dimri is the actress whose casting was formally announced by the makers.

Deepika later addressed the eight-hour workday debate

One of the biggest narratives surrounding Padukone’s Spirit exit was the claim that, as a new mother, she wanted an eight-hour working day.

Padukone later addressed that wider issue directly in an October 2025 interview with CNBC-TV18.

She argued that male superstars in the Indian film industry had been working eight-hour schedules for years without attracting the same headlines. She also said that if asserting such boundaries made her appear “pushy” because she was a woman, she was prepared to accept that characterisation.

Those comments are particularly relevant to the latest Instagram post because the carousel essentially makes the same broader argument: contractual demands that may be considered routine when made by male stars can be framed differently when made by women.

Padukone still did not provide a detailed public breakdown of her Spirit negotiations in that interview.

The 10 per cent claim needs careful framing

Pranay’s new comments add specificity to the dispute, but they should not automatically become established history.

His claim that Padukone sought a 10 per cent profit share is attributable to him. His allegation that details were leaked is also attributable to him.

Padukone has not, in the material reviewed here, publicly confirmed or denied that exact percentage.

Nor has the production released contracts, negotiation records or other documentary evidence establishing the full commercial terms discussed between the parties.

That means a headline such as “Deepika demanded 10% of Spirit profits” would be too definitive.

The more accurate wording is: Pranay Reddy Vanga claims she requested a 10 per cent profit share.

What has changed since 2025?

The interesting development is not that the old casting dispute has simply returned.

It is that the public record has become more complicated.

In 2025, the conversation was dominated by unnamed production-source reports, Vanga’s cryptic NDA post and the eventual casting of Triptii Dimri. In October, Padukone publicly reframed one part of the debate by arguing that eight-hour schedules for male stars were already normal.

Now, Pranay has supplied his own version of the failed negotiations, including a claimed profit-share demand.

And Padukone, without issuing a fresh interview or statement, has visibly supported a post characterising the continuing backlash as a gender double standard.

That makes the current story less about who “won” a casting dispute and more about who gets to define the narrative around a failed professional negotiation.

The Celebrity Hour Take

There are two separate questions here, and they should not be collapsed into one.

The first is commercial: could Padukone and the Spirit producers agree on fees, hours, profit participation and working conditions? If not, either side was entitled to walk away.

The second is cultural: why did those negotiations become a prolonged public argument about feminism, professionalism and gender?

That is where the latest Instagram like matters.

Padukone still has not provided a point-by-point answer to Pranay’s claims. But by supporting a post that asks why women face unusually intense scrutiny for negotiating money and working conditions, she has signalled which part of the debate she considers problematic.

There is also no need to turn that signal into more than it is.

An Instagram like is not a legal rebuttal, a contract disclosure or confirmation that every line in the carousel represents Padukone’s exact personal position. It is, however, a visible act of endorsement and in a dispute where she has otherwise remained relatively restrained publicly, that makes it newsworthy.

Sources & Verification

The Celebrity Hour independently reviewed current reporting documenting Deepika Padukone’s Instagram like, Pranay Reddy Vanga’s NTV Telugu comments, Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s earlier public statement, T-Series’ official Triptii Dimri casting announcement and Padukone’s October 2025 CNBC-TV18 interview about eight-hour working schedules.

Claims concerning a 10 per cent profit share and leaked confidential information are presented strictly as allegations made by Pranay Reddy Vanga. No contract or independent documentary evidence establishing those claims was identified in the material reviewed.