Kangana Ranaut has come out in support of Bihar MLA and singer Maithili Thakur after her appearance in a Rolls-Royce Cullinan at Mumbai's Lalbaugcha Raja became the subject of online criticism. The episode has quickly moved beyond a celebrity sighting. It has raised questions about how public figures are judged for their lifestyle, while also prompting discussion about Maithili Thakur's publicly declared finances and whether the luxury vehicle seen with her is actually owned by her. Kangana addressed the criticism through an Instagram post, questioning why people should object when successful individuals choose to enjoy the results of their work. Her intervention has added another dimension to a debate that initially centred on a luxury car. How the Rolls-Royce controversy began Maithili Thakur was recently seen arriving at Mumbai's Lalbaugcha Raja in a blue Rolls-Royce Cullinan. Images and videos of the singer-turned-politician subsequently circulated online. The vehicle's reported price which can run into several crores in India depending on the variant and taxes became a major part of the discussion. However, an important distinction needs to be made. The available evidence establishes that Maithili Thakur was seen travelling in the Rolls-Royce. It does not independently establish that she owns the vehicle. Some social-media discussion has treated the appearance as evidence that the car was personally purchased by Thakur. That conclusion has not been established through the publicly available material reviewed for this report. What Maithili Thakur's election affidavit says Maithili Thakur's 2025 Bihar Assembly election affidavit provides the clearest publicly documented picture of her finances around the time she entered electoral politics. According to data compiled by the Association for Democratic Reforms through MyNeta, Thakur declared total assets of ₹3.82 crore, including approximately ₹2.32 crore in movable assets and ₹1.50 crore in immovable assets. She declared zero liabilities. The affidavit also identifies her profession as singer and lists her sources of income as singing, social media and brand endorsements. For the 2023–24 financial year, the affidavit records total income of approximately ₹28.67 lakh. These figures are relevant to the public discussion, but they should not be misused. An election affidavit is a declaration made at a particular point in time. It is not a live financial statement covering every subsequent transaction or asset. MyNeta itself notes that the archived affidavit reflects the information declared during the election and that the current position may be different. Therefore, the affidavit alone cannot establish whether Thakur currently owns, rents, borrows or otherwise has access to the Rolls-Royce seen in Mumbai. Maithili Thakur's career predates her political entry The controversy has also brought renewed attention to Thakur's career before politics. Her election affidavit identifies her as a singer, while her income sources include singing, social-media activity and brand endorsements. This is significant because her financial background cannot simply be viewed through the lens of her relatively recent political career. Thakur won the Alinagar constituency in the 2025 Bihar Assembly election. Public election data lists her as a BJP candidate, aged 25 at the time of the election, with graduate-level education and declared assets of approximately ₹3.82 crore. That documented background provides context for the discussion surrounding her lifestyle. At the same time, it does not answer the separate question of who owns the particular Rolls-Royce seen at Lalbaugcha Raja. What Kangana Ranaut said Kangana Ranaut's response focused on a broader question: whether public figures should be criticised simply for displaying signs of financial success. In her social-media response, Ranaut defended Thakur and questioned the criticism directed at people who want to live comfortably after building successful careers. The Indian Express reported that Ranaut's response framed the issue around the scrutiny faced by successful people, particularly those from culturally prominent backgrounds. Other reports also carried Ranaut's argument that politicians remain individuals with careers and personal lives outside politics. Her comments, however, are an expression of her position on the controversy. They do not independently establish ownership of the Rolls-Royce. Why the ownership question matters There are actually two separate issues in the controversy. The first is a lifestyle question: should an elected representative or public figure be criticised for travelling in an expensive car? The second is a financial-transparency question: if the car belongs to the public representative, can its ownership and source of funds be documented? Those questions should not be conflated. A person's appearance in a luxury vehicle does not automatically prove ownership. Conversely, if documentary evidence later establishes that the vehicle belongs to an elected representative, questions about how it was acquired can reasonably be examined through official financial records. At present, the material reviewed for this report does not provide sufficient evidence to make that ownership claim. The political and celebrity worlds collide Thakur's case is particularly interesting because her public identity spans two different worlds. She established herself as a singer before entering electoral politics. Her declared income sources therefore include professional activities that existed independently of her political career. Kangana Ranaut's intervention similarly comes from the intersection of entertainment and politics. Ranaut is herself an actor who entered electoral politics and currently serves as a BJP MP. That shared experience of maintaining a public identity outside politics helps explain why Ranaut's response focused on the idea that politicians can have personal ambitions and professional lives alongside public service. That is Ranaut's stated position, rather than an independently established conclusion about Thakur's particular circumstances. The Celebrity Hour Take The most useful takeaway from the controversy is that viral visuals and verified financial information are two different things. The Rolls-Royce appearance is documented. Thakur's declared assets and income are also documented through her election affidavit. But there is currently a gap between those two pieces of information: the available evidence reviewed here does not establish that the particular Rolls-Royce belongs to Thakur. That distinction matters because online discussions can quickly turn an assumption into a supposed fact. There is also a legitimate public-interest reason to examine the finances of elected representatives. But such scrutiny is strongest when it is based on documents, declarations and verifiable records rather than assumptions drawn from a viral video. For now, the confirmed story is simpler than the online debate suggests: Maithili Thakur was seen travelling in a Rolls-Royce at Lalbaugcha Raja, the sighting triggered criticism, and Kangana Ranaut publicly defended her. The question of ownership remains separate and should not be presented as settled without additional evidence. What is confirmed and what is not? Confirmed: Maithili Thakur is a singer and BJP politician who won the Alinagar Assembly seat in Bihar in 2025. Her 2025 election affidavit declared total assets of ₹3.82 crore and no liabilities. Her declared income sources included singing, social media and brand endorsements. She was seen travelling in a Rolls-Royce Cullinan at Lalbaugcha Raja. Kangana Ranaut publicly defended her over the criticism. Not independently established: That Maithili Thakur personally owns the Rolls-Royce Cullinan. That she purchased the vehicle after becoming an MLA. That the vehicle was acquired using public money. Those distinctions should remain clear in any further coverage of the controversy. Sources & Verification The Celebrity Hour independently reviewed the available reporting and public records surrounding the controversy involving singer and Bihar MLA Maithili Thakur and her appearance in a Rolls-Royce Cullinan at Mumbai’s Lalbaugcha Raja. For this report, we consulted recent coverage from The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Times of India and Free Press Journal, along with publicly available election-affidavit information for Maithili Thakur from MyNeta/Association for Democratic Reforms and the Election Commission of India’s affidavit portal. The election records confirm that Thakur declared assets of approximately ₹3.82 crore and no liabilities in her 2025 Bihar Assembly election affidavit.

Actor Bipasha Basu has raised concerns about the quality of a protein powder after claiming that she discovered tiny worm-like particles inside a recently opened pack of Isopure protein powder. The actor shared her concern publicly on Instagram and tagged Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe, asking authorities to look into the matter. The incident has drawn attention not only because of Basu's celebrity status but also because it raises a broader question about how consumers can verify the authenticity and safety of packaged nutrition products. However, an important distinction remains: Basu's allegation has not, based on the information publicly available at the time of writing, been independently established as proof that the product was contaminated during manufacturing. What Bipasha Basu alleged Basu reportedly posted a video on her Instagram Story showing the contents of an Isopure protein powder container. She claimed that she noticed tiny moving particles that she believed were worms. Rather than treating the social-media post as a definitive finding, the matter requires examination of the actual product. Questions such as where the pack was purchased, whether it was genuine, how it was stored and what the particles actually were would all be relevant to determining what happened. Basu also tagged Maharashtra FDA Commissioner Tukaram Mundhe in connection with her complaint, bringing the issue to the attention of the state's food and drug regulatory machinery. Isopure responds to the complaint Following the controversy, Isopure responded to the concern. According to reports quoting Sumit Mathur, General Manager of Glanbia Performance Nutrition India, the company's quality team was evaluating the specific product pack. The company also highlighted its quality-control procedures and said that market monitoring is used to identify suspected cases involving counterfeit or unauthorised products. Isopure further advised consumers to purchase its products through authorised channels and use the QR-code authentication feature available on the packaging. That response is significant because it indicates that the company has not simply dismissed the complaint. At the same time, it also means that the allegation should not automatically be interpreted as confirmation of a manufacturing defect. Why authentication is an important part of the investigation When a consumer discovers an unexpected substance inside a packaged nutrition product, the investigation can involve several possible stages of the supply chain. Manufacturing is only one part of that chain. Storage conditions, transportation, retail handling, packaging integrity and product authenticity can also become relevant. This is why Isopure's reference to authentication is an important part of the company's response. Establishing whether the particular container came through an authorised supply chain could help determine how the product reached the consumer and whether it was genuine. For consumers buying supplements, the episode is also a reminder to retain the original packaging, batch information and purchase details when reporting a suspected product-quality issue. Has the Maharashtra FDA confirmed contamination? At the time of publication, there is no publicly verified regulatory finding establishing that the Isopure product shown by Basu was contaminated with worms. That distinction matters. Basu has made an allegation based on what she says she observed in the product. Isopure has acknowledged the issue and said the particular pack is being evaluated. A definitive conclusion would require appropriate examination by the company, a laboratory or a competent regulatory authority. Until such evidence is available, describing the product as definitively contaminated would go beyond what has been established. The bigger conversation around protein supplements The incident comes at a time when protein supplements have become increasingly visible in India's fitness and wellness market. Protein powders are consumed by gym-goers, athletes and people seeking convenient sources of dietary protein. That popularity also makes product authenticity and quality-control practices particularly important. For consumers, choosing an authorised seller, checking packaging and authentication details, and retaining purchase information can make it easier to address a complaint if something appears unusual. In cases involving suspected contamination, consumers should also avoid relying solely on social-media discussion to establish what happened. Examination of the product itself is ultimately more meaningful than online speculation. The Celebrity Hour Take The real significance of the Bipasha Basu-Isopure controversy lies in what happens after the social-media post. A celebrity's complaint can bring immediate public attention to a consumer-safety issue, but attention alone cannot determine whether a product was contaminated, counterfeit or affected somewhere else in the supply chain. That is why the next stage product examination and, if necessary, regulatory assessment is more important than the initial online reaction. For Isopure, the episode also highlights the importance of transparent communication when consumers raise questions about product quality. For consumers, it reinforces the value of buying supplements from authorised sources and keeping the packaging and purchase information until the product has been consumed. At present, the responsible conclusion is therefore limited: Bipasha Basu has raised a serious allegation, Isopure has responded and said the product is being evaluated, but a final independent finding about the alleged contamination has not been established publicly. The Celebrity Hour will update this report if a verified regulatory or laboratory finding becomes available. Sources & Verification The Celebrity Hour independently researched the incident using publicly reported details of Bipasha Basu's social-media complaint, established news coverage of Isopure's response, publicly available information from Isopure India and information concerning the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration. The article deliberately distinguishes between Basu's allegation, the company's response and facts that can be independently established. No conclusion regarding contamination has been presented as confirmed without supporting evidence.

Kiran Rao has built her filmmaking around characters who are allowed to be complicated, flawed and distinctly human. That approach continues in her latest work, Lust Stories 3, where she explores desire through a younger, more playful story while keeping a strong female perspective at its centre. The filmmaker has spoken about why women naturally occupy an important place in her cinema. For Rao, representation is not something that needs to be added separately to a story; it emerges from the perspective through which she approaches filmmaking. Kiran Rao’s Approach to Female Characters Discussing her work in Lust Stories 3, Rao explained that being a woman inevitably influences the way she sees stories and characters. She said she finds it difficult to imagine making a film in which women are neither properly represented nor important to the narrative. Her comments are particularly relevant when viewed alongside her previous work. Rao's Laapataa Ladies placed two young women at the centre of a story about identity, independence and finding one's voice. Instead of treating its female characters simply as victims of circumstances, the film followed their gradual movement towards self-discovery. With Lust Stories 3, Rao moves into a completely different tonal space. A Different Side of Kiran Rao in Lust Stories 3 Rao's segment in the Netflix anthology stars Gurfateh Pirzada and Sana Thampi. The story revolves around attraction and the decisions that follow it, allowing the filmmaker to explore desire with humour and youthful energy. The subject matter is markedly different from Laapataa Ladies, but there is a connecting thread: the characters are not merely there to advance someone else's story. Rao has described the women in the anthology as characters who can be interesting, complex and nuanced. That distinction matters because Lust Stories 3 is not structured around one single interpretation of relationships or desire. Four filmmakers bring four different perspectives to the anthology. Alongside Rao, the film features segments directed by Vikramaditya Motwane, Shakun Batra and Vishal Bhardwaj. From Laapataa Ladies to Lust Stories 3 Rao's directorial career has been relatively selective, but her films have often placed character development ahead of conventional storytelling formulas. Her debut feature, Dhobi Ghat, released in 2011 and followed four interconnected individuals in Mumbai. Years later, Laapataa Ladies marked her return to feature filmmaking and became a story about two young brides whose lives take an unexpected turn after they are separated from their respective husbands. The two films are very different, but both rely heavily on individual characters and their experiences. Lust Stories 3 gives Rao another opportunity to examine relationships, but this time through the lens of desire rather than social realism. Why the Female Perspective Matters in the Anthology The broader Lust Stories franchise has consistently examined relationships, intimacy and desire from different filmmaking perspectives. The third instalment brings together four directors and multiple generations of actors. Rao's presence adds another dimension because her segment approaches its subject through a distinctly character-driven lens. Rather than reducing the female characters to a single idea of romance or sexuality, the film gives them room to make choices, make mistakes and deal with the consequences. That is also where Rao's comments about representation become relevant. Her approach suggests that female characters do not necessarily have to be defined by a social message. They can simply be central characters with their own desires, contradictions and motivations. Sana Thampi Steps Into the Spotlight Rao's segment also introduces audiences to Sana Thampi, who appears opposite Gurfateh Pirzada. Thampi has spoken about being familiar with the Lust Stories franchise before joining the project. Her role in Rao's segment gives the story a young, contemporary perspective that fits its lighter treatment of attraction and relationships. For the actor, the project also represents an important opportunity to work with an established filmmaker and become part of a major Netflix anthology. The Celebrity Hour Take Kiran Rao's comments offer an insight into the consistency behind her relatively small body of directorial work. Her films may differ significantly in setting, tone and subject, but women are rarely treated as peripheral figures. Laapataa Ladies explored identity and independence, while her Lust Stories 3 segment approaches desire through a more playful contemporary story. The interesting part is not simply that Rao makes films involving women. It is that her female characters are given room to behave like complete people rather than serving only one narrative function. Sources & Verification This article was independently prepared using Kiran Rao’s publicly reported comments on women’s representation and her approach to filmmaking, along with verified information about Lust Stories 3 and its creative team. The film’s official Netflix listing was consulted to verify the anthology’s premise and its release/platform information. Contemporary coverage from established Indian publications was also reviewed to cross-check details about Rao’s segment, the film’s directors and cast. The article’s discussion of Kiran Rao’s broader filmmaking perspective also draws on previously documented interviews and coverage of Laapataa Ladies. Interpretive observations in “The Celebrity Hour Take” are editorial analysis based on the verified career and project information and are not presented as statements made by Rao. No unverified social-media reactions, anonymous claims or invented quotations have been used.

Sridevi Chennai Property Dispute: Supreme Court Issues Notice to Boney Kapoor, Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor A long-running property dispute connected to late actor Sridevi's family has reached the Supreme Court, with the court issuing notices to filmmaker Boney Kapoor and his daughters, actors Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor. The case concerns a 2.70-acre parcel of land in Sholinganallur, Chennai, linked to property acquired by Sridevi and her family in 1988. On September 16, 2026, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Pillai directed the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed property and encouraged them to explore mediation. The matter is scheduled to come up again on December 18, 2026. The Supreme Court's latest order does not decide ownership of the land. It follows a challenge to an April 2026 Madras High Court order that had rejected the underlying civil suit. What Is the Sridevi Property Dispute About? The dispute concerns land at Survey No. 1/1B in Sholinganallur, on Chennai's East Coast Road. The specific disputed portion is reported as measuring 2.70 acres. According to the case history reported from the court proceedings, sale deeds dated April 19, 1988 transferred the property to Sridevi, her sister Sree Latha and their mother Rajeshwari. The petitioners in the Supreme Court proceedings are M.C. Sivakami and her brother M.C. Natarajan. They claim rights in the property through their late father, M.C. Chandrasekaran. The petitioners have challenged the earlier property transactions and are seeking recognition of a share in the disputed land. Their case is that the property was connected to their family's ancestral holdings and that the transactions through which Sridevi and her family acquired it should be examined by the court. These are claims made by the petitioners, not findings established by the Supreme Court. Why Are Boney Kapoor, Janhvi and Khushi Kapoor Involved? Sridevi died in 2018. Following her death, Boney Kapoor and their daughters became involved in the property-related proceedings concerning her estate. The present Supreme Court case is formally M.C. Sivakami and Another v. Boney Kapoor and Others, SLP (C) No. 23267/2026, according to legal reporting on the proceedings. Boney Kapoor and his daughters had successfully challenged the continuation of the civil suit before the Madras High Court earlier this year. The Supreme Court is now considering the petition filed against that High Court decision. The notice issued by the Supreme Court gives the Kapoor family an opportunity to respond to the petition. It should not be interpreted as a finding that the petitioners' property claims have been proved. What Did the Madras High Court Decide? Before reaching the Supreme Court, the dispute was considered by the Madras High Court. On April 20, 2026, Justice T.V. Thamilselvi allowed the Kapoor side's challenge and ordered rejection of the plaint filed by the petitioners. The High Court considered several issues, including the age of the underlying transactions, limitation and the petitioners' claimed status as legal heirs. According to the reported judgment, the court concluded that the challenge to transactions dating back to 1988 was barred by limitation and that the plaint had other legal deficiencies. The High Court also considered arguments concerning the petitioners' claim of discovering the transactions only in 2023 and their asserted legal-heir status. Importantly, these were findings made by the Madras High Court at the stage of deciding whether the plaint could proceed. The Supreme Court has now issued notice on the challenge to that decision. What Has the Supreme Court Ordered? The Supreme Court has taken a different procedural step from deciding the underlying ownership dispute. The bench has: issued notice to Boney Kapoor, Janhvi Kapoor and Khushi Kapoor; directed the parties to maintain status quo concerning the disputed property; suggested that the parties attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation; indicated that a retired High Court judge could oversee the mediation; and listed the matter for further consideration on December 18, 2026. The status-quo direction means that the existing position concerning the property is to be preserved while the matter remains before the Supreme Court. Reports on the order have described the restrictions as covering changes to the property's existing position, including transfer or other material alterations. Why Has Mediation Been Suggested? During the September 16 hearing, the Supreme Court encouraged the parties to consider an amicable settlement rather than continuing a prolonged property dispute. Bar & Bench reported that the bench indicated it could appoint a retired High Court judge as mediator and asked the parties whether they were prepared to sit together and attempt to resolve the matter. Mediation, however, does not mean that the Supreme Court has determined that either side's legal position is correct. It is a mechanism through which parties can attempt to reach a settlement without the court having to finally adjudicate every disputed issue. What Are the Two Sides Arguing? The petitioners, M.C. Sivakami and M.C. Natarajan, maintain that they have a legal share in the property through their family lineage. They have challenged the validity of the historical transactions and want the underlying suit to be allowed to proceed. The Kapoor side has argued that the 1988 transaction was lawful and that the challenge was brought decades after the sale deeds were executed. Their arguments before the High Court included limitation and questions surrounding the petitioners' legal standing. According to reporting on the Supreme Court hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the Kapoor family, while Raju Ramachandran represented the petitioners. The Supreme Court has not, at this stage, finally resolved these competing claims. A Key Point About the “2.70 Acres” and the Larger Property There is an important distinction in descriptions of the property that should not be overlooked. Current reports consistently identify the disputed portion as 2.70 acres, while some accounts of the original property transaction refer to a larger 4.7-acre property associated with the sale deeds challenged by the petitioners. For that reason, the most precise description is that the current litigation concerns a 2.70-acre portion/property interest connected to a larger property transaction involving approximately 4.7 acres. Coverage should avoid treating the two figures as interchangeable without explaining the distinction. What Happens Next? The immediate next step is mediation and the response from the Kapoor family to the Supreme Court proceedings. The case is scheduled for further consideration on December 18, 2026, when the court is expected to review the progress of the mediation process. If mediation produces an agreement, the dispute could potentially be resolved through settlement. If it does not, the Supreme Court will have to consider the challenge to the Madras High Court's rejection of the civil suit. For now, there is no final Supreme Court determination on ownership of the disputed land. The Celebrity Hour Take The most important development in the Sridevi property dispute is not simply that the Kapoor family has received a Supreme Court notice. It is that a property dispute dating back to transactions executed in 1988 has returned to the judicial spotlight nearly four decades later. The case also illustrates why celebrity-linked property disputes can be legally more complicated than their headlines suggest. The central questions involve historical title documents, limitation, inheritance and the legal standing of the people asserting a share not simply the fact that the property was associated with one of India's most famous actors. The Supreme Court's decision to preserve the status quo and explore mediation means the dispute remains unresolved. Until the court makes a final determination or the parties reach a settlement, claims about who ultimately owns or is entitled to the property should be treated as contested legal positions rather than established facts. Sources & Verification This report was researched using current reporting on the September 16, 2026 Supreme Court proceedings, legal reporting on the case M.C. Sivakami and Another v. Boney Kapoor and Others, and the reported April 20, 2026 Madras High Court decision. The article distinguishes the petitioners' allegations, the Kapoor family's legal arguments and the findings already made by the Madras High Court from the Supreme Court's present procedural directions. The Supreme Court's September proceedings resulted in notice and a status-quo direction; they did not constitute a final ruling on ownership of the property.

Anant Nag is one of the most recognisable names in Kannada cinema, with a career spanning more than five decades across films, theatre and television. Known for his naturalistic acting and ability to move between mainstream and parallel cinema, Nag has worked in Kannada as well as Hindi, Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam and Marathi films. In September 2026, the Government of India announced that Anant Nag would receive the Dadasaheb Phalke Award for 2024, recognising his contribution to Indian cinema. The award is scheduled to be presented at the 72nd National Film Awards ceremony in Kevadia, Gujarat, on September 22, 2026. The honour comes after a career that has included more than 300 films, major collaborations with filmmakers such as Shyam Benegal and Girish Karnad, the television classic Malgudi Days, and several major state and national honours. Anant Nag Early Life and Family Background Anant Nag was born on September 4, 1948. The Government of India's Padma Awards citation identifies him as an actor from Karnataka and records that he spent his early years at Anandashram in Kasargode district and at Shri Chitrapur Math in Shirali. He received his early education in places including Udupi, Chitrapur, Shirali and Honnavar before moving to Bombay, where he completed his matriculation. His early exposure to theatre played an important role in shaping his career. During his college years, at the age of 18, Nag was selected to play the lead in a three-act play about Saint Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. He subsequently appeared in plays based on the life of Gautama Buddha and another involving a young man with memories of a previous life. According to the Government's Padma citation, those early opportunities became the foundation for a theatre career in which he performed more than 50 different roles over the following five years. How Anant Nag Entered Films Nag's transition from theatre to cinema was supported by several important figures in Kannada theatre and filmmaking, including Y. N. Krishnamurthy, Girish Karnad and G. V. Iyer, according to his official Padma Bhushan citation. He made his Kannada feature-film debut as a lead actor in Sankalp. His move into Hindi cinema came with Shyam Benegal's Ankur. That association proved significant because Nag subsequently appeared in several important films associated with the Hindi parallel-cinema movement, including Nishant, Manthan, Bhumika and Kalyug. His filmography also includes work with directors such as M. S. Sathyu and Girish Karnad. Rather than being confined to one particular kind of role, Nag moved between different genres and filmmaking traditions throughout his career. Anant Nag and the Rise of Kannada Parallel Cinema One of the defining aspects of Anant Nag's career has been his association with the evolution of modern Kannada cinema. His performances during the 1970s and 1980s came at a time when Kannada filmmakers were experimenting with stories, characterisation and filmmaking styles that differed from conventional commercial cinema. Films such as Hamsageethe, Ankur, Nishant, Manthan, Bhumika and Kalyug demonstrated his ability to work within dramatically different cinematic environments. His screen persona was often built around restraint rather than conventional star theatrics. That versatility later allowed him to move comfortably into lighter commercial films and supporting roles, helping him remain relevant across different generations of Kannada audiences. Anant Nag's Best-Known Films Across his long career, Nag has appeared in hundreds of films. The Government's Padma citation puts his film count at more than 300 across Kannada, Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam, Tamil and Marathi cinema. Some important films associated with his career include: Sankalp Ankur Nishant Manthan Bhumika Kalyug Hamsageethe Bayalu Daari Hosa Neeru Avasthe Ganeshana Maduve Gauri Ganesha Godhi Banna Sadharana Mykattu K.G.F: Chapter 1 His career also includes films across different phases of Kannada cinema, from the influential filmmaking of the 1970s to contemporary productions. Anant Nag and Malgudi Days For many viewers outside Karnataka, one of Anant Nag's most recognisable associations is R. K. Narayan's Malgudi Days. The television series, produced by T. S. Narasimhan and directed by Nag's younger brother Shankar Nag, brought adaptations of Narayan's stories to a national television audience. Anant Nag was part of this wider creative association with the series. The Government's Padma citation specifically lists Malgudi Days among his notable work. The series remains an important part of his television legacy because it connected his acting career with one of India's best-known literary worlds. His Work With Brother Shankar Nag Anant Nag's career is also closely connected with his younger brother Shankar Nag, who became an influential actor, director and filmmaker in Kannada cinema. Their professional association included Malgudi Days, while Anant Nag's wider career also intersected with the creative movement in Kannada cinema in which Shankar was an important figure. The relationship between the brothers became part of Anant Nag's personal and professional history, and Nag later received the Karnataka Sahitya Academy Award for a biographical book about his late brother, according to the Government's Padma citation. Anant Nag's Awards and Honours Nag's career has been recognised with numerous awards. According to the Government of India's official Padma citation, he has received: Five Karnataka State Best Actor Awards Five Filmfare Awards Karnataka Rajyotsava Award Karnataka Sahitya Academy Award Karnataka State Lifetime Achievement Award An honorary doctorate from Bangalore University (North) He was also awarded the Padma Bhushan in 2025 in the field of Art. The official Padma Awards database lists Anant Nag among the 2025 Padma Bhushan awardees from Karnataka. The Government's citation described him as a veteran Kannada film actor recognised for versatility and his contribution to Indian cinema over five decades. Anant Nag's Political Career Anant Nag's public life has not been limited to cinema. According to his official Padma Bhushan citation, he served as a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Council from 1988 to 1994. He was subsequently a Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 1994 to 1999, during which period he served as Minister of State for Bangalore City Development. His political career therefore represents a separate chapter in his public life, following his emergence as a major actor in Kannada cinema. Why Anant Nag Is Receiving the Dadasaheb Phalke Award On September 16, 2026, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting announced that Anant Nag had been selected for the Dadasaheb Phalke Award for 2024 on the recommendation of the Dadasaheb Phalke Award Selection Committee. The government cited his contribution to the growth and development of Indian cinema and his cinematic journey spanning more than five decades. The award is scheduled to be presented on September 22, 2026, at the 72nd National Film Awards ceremony in Kevadia, Gujarat. The timing also places the award alongside another major milestone in his career. The official Padma Bhushan citation notes that Nag completed 50 years in cinema in 2023, marking his Golden Jubilee in the profession. Prime Minister Narendra Modi also congratulated Nag following the announcement, highlighting his versatility and contribution particularly to Kannada cinema. What Makes Anant Nag's Career Significant? Anant Nag's career is notable not simply because of its length, but because of the range of cinematic spaces he has occupied. He emerged through theatre, became part of the parallel-cinema movement, built a substantial career in Kannada commercial cinema, appeared in Hindi films, became associated with Malgudi Days, entered politics and continued acting across different generations. His filmography also demonstrates how a regional actor can maintain a career across linguistic and stylistic boundaries without being restricted to a single screen identity. The Government's own description of his career emphasises his work across six languages and more than 300 films, while his awards reflect recognition from both Karnataka and the wider Indian film industry. Anant Nag Today At 78, Anant Nag remains an active figure in Indian cinema. His recent filmography shows that his career has extended well beyond the era in which he first became a leading name. The Dadasaheb Phalke Award now adds the country's most prominent lifetime cinema honour to a résumé that already includes the Padma Bhushan, multiple Filmfare Awards, Karnataka State awards and decades of work across cinema, theatre and television. His journey from theatre performances as a young actor to recognition at the national level is also a reflection of the changing history of Kannada cinema itself. The Celebrity Hour Take Anant Nag's biography is best understood as the story of range rather than a single defining role. He has been a theatre actor, a leading man, a parallel-cinema performer, a commercial-film actor, a television performer and a public representative. His career also crosses several generations of Indian filmmaking from the work of Girish Karnad and Shyam Benegal to appearances in contemporary Kannada cinema. The Dadasaheb Phalke Award therefore arrives as a recognition of a career that has repeatedly changed shape without losing its connection to acting. The most useful way to view his legacy is through that continuity: more than five decades of adapting to different languages, filmmakers, genres and generations while remaining associated with Kannada cinema. Sources & Verification This biography was researched primarily from Government of India sources, including the Press Information Bureau's September 2026 announcement of the Dadasaheb Phalke Award and the official Padma Awards citation for Anant Nag. These sources were supplemented with established film-industry references for filmography and career chronology. The article distinguishes confirmed biographical information from broader critical interpretations of his career.

Salman Khan Addresses Body-Shaming Amid Katrina Kaif Trolling Salman Khan has spoken out against the culture of online trolling and body-shaming during the latest Bigg Boss 20 Weekend Ka Vaar, with his comments drawing particular attention because they came amid criticism directed at Katrina Kaif following her return to the public eye after becoming a mother. Katrina has recently faced social-media comments about changes in her appearance and weight after pregnancy. Salman did not explicitly name Katrina while discussing the issue on the show, but his remarks about women being targeted after becoming mothers were widely connected to the ongoing conversation around the actor. The timing is significant because Katrina recently appeared publicly with husband Vicky Kaushal at the Ambani family's Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations in Mumbai. Her appearance led to online commentary about her post-pregnancy body, prompting criticism of those comments from several quarters. Salman Questions Why Women Are Targeted After Pregnancy During the episode, Salman challenged the tendency to judge women for physical changes after pregnancy. His central argument was that pregnancy naturally brings changes to the body and that a new mother should not be expected to immediately look the way she did before becoming pregnant. Reports on the episode quoted Salman questioning why someone who has recently gone through pregnancy should be subjected to comments about her weight and appearance. He also suggested that when an actor eventually returns to professional commitments, getting back into shape can happen on that person's own timeline. That distinction is important. Salman's remarks were not an announcement about Katrina's career or fitness plans. They were comments about the pressure placed on celebrities and particularly women to meet appearance expectations immediately after major personal milestones. The Conversation Was Bigger Than Katrina Kaif Although Katrina's situation provided the immediate context, Salman framed the issue as part of a much broader problem with social-media behaviour. He spoke about celebrities being targeted for their weight, age, appearance, family circumstances and professional setbacks. The actor also criticised the tendency to turn someone's physical appearance into material for repeated online commentary. India Today reported that Salman also questioned intrusive paparazzi practices involving photographs that focus on women's bodies rather than their professional appearances or public activities. The discussion therefore extended beyond one celebrity. It touched on a larger entertainment-media ecosystem in which celebrities are frequently photographed, discussed and judged in public spaces. Salman Also Confronted Trolls Targeting Him The actor did not position himself outside the issue. During the same episode, Salman addressed comments about his own age and appearance. He challenged people who criticise his changing physique and even removed his shirt during the programme while addressing those comments. Multiple reports noted that the moment was part of his larger response to online trolling. His response established a parallel between the criticism he receives and the scrutiny faced by other celebrities. The underlying message was that audiences can criticise an actor's performance or a film, but personal attacks about someone's body, age or private life cross into a different kind of commentary. Salman also made the point that buying a cinema ticket does not mean buying the person who appears on screen. That distinction was highlighted in coverage of the episode. Why Katrina Kaif Became Part of the Conversation Katrina and Vicky Kaushal became parents to their first child in November 2025. Her recent public appearance therefore represented an important moment in her return to public life after motherhood. Rather than focusing solely on her appearance, the reaction also prompted a discussion about the expectations placed on celebrity mothers. The issue has received attention from other members of the entertainment industry as well. Pakistani actor Ali Zafar, who previously worked with Katrina, publicly criticised the practice of judging women according to narrow beauty standards after pregnancy. This context helps explain why Salman's comments attracted attention even though he did not identify Katrina by name. Salman’s “Parasites” Remark Salman also used particularly strong language while describing people who repeatedly engage in online trolling. According to reports from the episode, he referred to such people as “parasites”, arguing that individuals who make money or derive attention by putting others down contribute to a toxic online environment. His comments were part of a wider criticism of people who target celebrities over their appearance, personal lives and perceived failures. Rather than treating trolling as harmless online banter, Salman linked the behaviour to the real-world consequences of sustained abuse. What This Says About Celebrity Culture The controversy surrounding Katrina illustrates how quickly a celebrity's personal milestone can become an appearance-based public discussion. For actors, returning to public events after pregnancy can attract attention regardless of what they are actually promoting. The focus can then shift from their work to questions about weight, clothing or physical changes. Salman's comments bring that tension into sharper focus. While celebrities voluntarily operate in a highly visible profession, that visibility does not eliminate the distinction between public criticism and personal body-shaming. The discussion also demonstrates how celebrity culture has changed in the social-media era. A single photograph can become the starting point for thousands of comments, comparisons and judgments within hours. The Celebrity Hour Take The most significant part of this episode is not simply that Salman Khan spoke in support of a fellow actor. It is that the discussion moves the focus from whether Katrina has changed physically to why her physical change became a subject for public judgment at all. Katrina has recently entered a different phase of her life as a mother, and there is no verified reason to treat her appearance at a particular public event as a measure of her health, career plans or readiness to return to work. Salman's intervention also carries an element of self-reflection because he simultaneously addressed criticism aimed at his own changing appearance. For The Celebrity Hour, the broader takeaway is that celebrity visibility should not be confused with unrestricted access to a person's body or private life. Professional criticism is part of entertainment culture; personal body-shaming is a separate conversation. Sources & Verification This report was prepared using coverage of the September 2026 Bigg Boss 20 Weekend Ka Vaar episode, including reports documenting Salman's remarks about trolling, body-shaming and motherhood. The reporting around Katrina Kaif's recent public appearance and the online criticism she received was separately reviewed. Importantly, Salman did not explicitly name Katrina Kaif in the remarks; references connecting his comments to Katrina are therefore treated as contextual interpretations rather than a direct statement from Salman about her.

The 18th International Documentary and Short Film Festival of Kerala (IDSFFK) is facing a major screening-related setback after the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting denied censor exemption to 31 films scheduled for the festival. The festival is scheduled to take place in Thiruvananthapuram from September 25 to 30, 2026. The affected titles include films from the festival's official selection, its International Non-Fiction section, Festival Winners section and Nepal Package. The development has also prompted a call from Kerala's Minister for Cinema, P. C. Vishnunath, for the decision to be reconsidered. Importantly, the issue concerns censor exemption for festival screening, rather than a CBFC refusal to certify the films for theatrical release. The distinction matters because films being shown at festivals can require an exemption from the certification requirement. What Happened at IDSFFK? According to reports published on September 19, the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy had submitted a list of 347 films to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting seeking exemption from certification requirements for the festival. The initial submission contained summaries of the films' subjects. The ministry subsequently sought more detailed information on 40 films, including detailed synopses and screeners, which the Academy provided for review. Of those films examined in this process, 31 were subsequently denied permission for screening, according to multiple reports. The 31 films reportedly comprise: 18 officially selected films 9 films in the International Non-Fiction section 3 films in the Festival Winners section 1 film from the Nepal Package A Malayalam film is also among the affected titles. The official IDSFFK website identifies the festival as an annual event organised under the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy and currently lists its 2026 programme. Which Films Have Been Denied Permission? Among the films identified in reports are Parliament Street, Sanitised Republic: Cast(e) & Contracts, Globe, Memories of a Window, Birds of War, Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk and Our Land. The subjects of several of these documentaries illustrate the range of material programmed at IDSFFK. Sanitised Republic: Cast(e) & Contracts, for example, examines the lives of sanitation workers associated with Delhi hospitals and the issues surrounding contractual employment and caste-linked sanitation work. The IDSFFK's own website lists the film in its documentary programme. Parliament Street, meanwhile, deals with public memory, personal memories and the history associated with a prominent Delhi street. The film is also listed on the official IDSFFK programme. Another affected title, Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk, directed by Iranian filmmaker Sepideh Farsi, documents a series of video conversations with Palestinian photojournalist Fatma Hassona in Gaza. The film has subsequently been screened at international venues outside India, including the UK's Institute of Contemporary Arts. Why the Censor Exemption Process Matters The terminology surrounding the controversy is important. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting maintains a formal policy framework concerning exemptions from film certification. Its current website lists a March 30, 2026 policy document titled “Exemptions from the provisions of certification of films.” Separately, the Ministry has stated that the Central Board of Film Certification is the statutory body responsible for certifying films for public exhibition under the Cinematograph Act and associated rules. Therefore, describing the 31 films simply as having been “banned” would go beyond what has been independently established in the material reviewed for this report. The verified development is that the Ministry has denied the requested exemption allowing these films to be screened at IDSFFK. The precise reasons for each individual denial have not been publicly established in the sources reviewed for this article. That distinction should be retained in coverage until the relevant official orders or explanations are made available. Kerala Minister Calls for Reconsideration Following the decision, Kerala Minister for Cinema P. C. Vishnunath called for the Union Ministry to reconsider the denial. According to The South First, Vishnunath argued that films at an international festival are selected through an expert curatorial process and said the denial restricts the curatorial freedom of such festivals. He also emphasised the role of documentaries and short films in presenting different social realities and perspectives. Those comments represent the Kerala government's stated position on the matter and should be distinguished from the Ministry's decision itself. As of the latest reporting reviewed here, a detailed public explanation from the Union Ministry addressing the individual 31 films was not available in the sources examined. This Is Not the First Recent Kerala Festival Dispute The IDSFFK development comes months after a similar dispute surrounding the 30th International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK) in December 2025. The official IFFK website recorded that the Union Ministry had initially refused censor exemption to 19 films selected for that festival. The Kerala government subsequently instructed the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy to ensure that the affected films were screened. Contemporary reporting also documented that some of those 19 films later received exemptions following discussions between the state and Union governments. That earlier episode provides context for why the latest IDSFFK decision has attracted attention, but it does not establish that the same outcome will occur this year. What Happens Next? The immediate question is whether any of the 31 films will receive clearance before the festival begins on September 25. The Kerala side has publicly called for reconsideration, while the available reports do not yet establish whether the Union Ministry will revise its decision or whether the festival organisers will make changes to the programme. For now, the confirmed position is that 31 scheduled films do not have the required censor exemption for screening at IDSFFK, while the festival itself remains scheduled for September 25-30 in Thiruvananthapuram. The Celebrity Hour Take The significance of the IDSFFK dispute goes beyond the number of films affected. It highlights the regulatory process that international film festivals in India must navigate when presenting works that do not hold conventional certification for public exhibition. The immediate facts are relatively straightforward: the Academy submitted 347 films for exemption, additional material was requested for 40, and 31 of those films were denied permission according to the reporting available on September 19. The reasons behind the individual denials, however, are not sufficiently documented in the public sources reviewed to draw broader conclusions about the Ministry's criteria. That distinction is important for readers. The controversy can be reported and examined without assuming motives that have not been established. The next significant development will therefore be whether the Ministry provides further clarification, changes its decision on any of the films, or whether the festival proceeds with a revised programme. Sources & Verification This report was prepared using the official IDSFFK website and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting's published policy material, alongside current reporting from The South First, Kerala Kaumudi and other Indian news outlets. Film-specific details were cross-checked against the IDSFFK programme and, where available, international film-programme sources. The article deliberately uses “denied censor exemption” or “denied screening permission” rather than treating the films as permanently “banned”, because the available evidence establishes the denial of festival-screening exemption but does not establish a permanent prohibition or the individual reasons for every denial.

A Marathi film rooted in Maharashtra’s folk traditions will represent India in the next stage of the Academy Awards race. Santosh Davakhar’s Gondhal has been selected as India’s official entry for the Best International Feature Film category at the 99th Academy Awards, scheduled for March 2027. The Film Federation of India announced the selection on September 18, choosing Gondhal from 33 films submitted for consideration. The decision puts a regional-language thriller at the centre of India’s Oscar campaign and follows the film’s recognition at several film festivals, including the International Film Festival of India. Importantly, Gondhal is India’s official submission, not yet an Oscar nominee. It must still progress through the Academy’s shortlist and nomination stages before it can become one of the five films nominated in the category. What Is Gondhal About? Written and directed by Santosh Davakhar, Gondhal is set in rural Maharashtra against the backdrop of the traditional Gondhal ritual, a folk performance combining music, dance and religious traditions. The story follows Suman, a woman trapped in an unhappy marriage to the affluent Anand. Her relationship with Saheba, a Gondhali performer, becomes connected to a dangerous plan involving her husband and his cousin Sarjerao. The film uses the night-long ritual as more than simply a cultural setting. Its atmosphere becomes closely connected with the characters' choices, relationships and the unfolding thriller. The official IFFI material describes the film as a story in which cultural tradition, human desire and suspense intersect. The principal cast includes Ishita Deshmukh, Kishor Kadam, Yogesh Sohoni, Suresh Vishwakarma, Nishad Bhoir, Anuj Prabhu and Vitthal Kale. From a Marathi Release to the Oscar Race One of the more interesting aspects of Gondhal's Oscar journey is that the film is not entering the race solely because of its latest announcement. The movie had already developed a festival profile before being selected as India's submission. At the 56th International Film Festival of India in 2025, Santosh Davakhar received the Silver Peacock for Best Director for Gondhal. The IFFI jury praised the film's handling of tradition, form and narrative precision. That recognition established Davakhar as a filmmaker to watch on the festival circuit before the Oscar selection brought the film wider national attention. The film has also received recognition at other festivals, including the Bengaluru International Film Festival and Pune International Film Festival, according to established coverage of its Oscar selection. Why the Film's Cultural Setting Matters The word “Gondhal” refers to a traditional Maharashtrian ritual and folk-performance tradition. In Davakhar's film, it becomes part of the dramatic architecture rather than an incidental backdrop. The story is built around a particular social and cultural environment in rural Maharashtra. That gives the film a distinctly regional identity while allowing its central themes marriage, desire, social expectations, faith and personal freedom to operate at a broader human level. This is also one reason the film's festival recognition provides useful context for its Oscar selection. Its cultural specificity is not separated from the thriller format; the two elements operate together. A Different Kind of Oscar Submission India's Oscar submissions have historically come from multiple language industries and cinematic traditions. Gondhal continues that diversity by bringing a Marathi-language story to the International Feature Film race. The selection is also notable because the film was chosen from 33 submissions, including films from several major Indian language industries. According to reporting on the Film Federation of India's announcement, the submissions included 14 Hindi films, four each in Marathi, Telugu and Gujarati, three Tamil films, and entries in Malayalam and Nagamese, along with a silent film. That makes the selection process broader than a contest between only mainstream Hindi releases. The final decision was made by the Film Federation of India's selection committee, chaired by filmmaker P. Seshadri. Santosh Davakhar's Breakthrough Moment For Davakhar, the Oscar selection represents a major escalation in the reach of a film that began as a Marathi production. His earlier IFFI recognition had already brought attention to his filmmaking. The Oscar submission now places his work in a much larger international conversation. The director has also spoken about the challenge of presenting Indian cinema internationally without reducing the country's identity to familiar stereotypes. In an interview following the Oscar announcement, Davakhar discussed his desire to present India's cultural richness through cinema. That perspective is particularly relevant to Gondhal, where the cultural environment is integral to the story rather than simply an aesthetic choice. The Ilaiyaraaja Connection Another noteworthy element surrounding Gondhal is its music. The film features music by Ilaiyaraaja, one of the most influential composers in Indian cinema. His involvement adds another layer to the film's cultural and musical identity. The Oscar selection also coincides with the composer marking five decades in Indian cinema. For a film built around a traditional musical ritual, the presence of a composer with Ilaiyaraaja's extensive experience gives the soundtrack additional significance within the project's overall creative framework. What Happens to Gondhal Now? The Oscar announcement does not mean that Gondhal has already secured a nomination. Under the Academy's current rules, films in the International Feature Film category go through a preliminary voting stage. Fifteen films advance to the shortlist, after which Academy members vote on the shortlisted titles to determine the five nominees. The Academy's current calendar lists December 15, 2026 for the shortlist announcement and January 21, 2027 for the nominations announcement. The 99th Academy Awards are scheduled for March 14, 2027, at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood. For Gondhal, the immediate task is therefore to make it through the shortlist process. The film's selection gives it the official backing of India's designated selection committee, but the Academy's subsequent voting process will determine whether it moves further. The Celebrity Hour Take Gondhal's Oscar selection is significant because it demonstrates how a film can take a highly specific regional setting and use it to tell a story with wider themes. The film is unmistakably rooted in Maharashtra the language, ritual and rural environment are central to its identity. At the same time, the emotional conflict at its centre is not restricted to one region. That combination may be one of the film's most interesting qualities as it enters the international awards conversation. The festival recognition already received by Davakhar gives the Oscar campaign some context, while the film's subject provides a clear cultural identity. But the Academy race is still open. The next meaningful milestone will be the shortlist announcement in December. For now, the confirmed achievement is straightforward: Santosh Davakhar's Marathi thriller Gondhal has been selected as India's official submission for the 99th Academy Awards' International Feature Film category. Gondhal at a Glance Film: Gondhal Language: Marathi Director: Santosh Davakhar Writer: Santosh Davakhar Key cast: Ishita Deshmukh, Kishor Kadam, Yogesh Sohoni, Suresh Vishwakarma, Nishad Bhoir, Anuj Prabhu and Vitthal Kale Music: Ilaiyaraaja India's Oscar category: International Feature Film Oscar edition: 99th Academy Awards India's selection announcement: September 18, 2026 Films considered: 33 Current status: India's official submission; not yet an Oscar nominee Sources & Verification This report was independently researched using official Government of India/IFFI material concerning Gondhal and Santosh Davakhar's festival recognition, established reporting on the Film Federation of India's September 2026 selection announcement, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' official rules and calendar for the 99th Oscars. The article deliberately distinguishes India's official submission from an eventual Academy shortlist or nomination.

Rashmika Mandanna has addressed the criticism she receives over her accent and language skills, particularly as she continues to work across Kannada, Telugu, Tamil and Hindi cinema. In a recent interview the actor explained that her multilingual career was not the result of a carefully planned strategy. Instead, she said it developed organically as different opportunities came her way. The conversation also gave Rashmika an opportunity to explain her relationship with language and why she does not allow criticism over pronunciation or accent to become the focus of her career. Rashmika Mandanna Explains Her Connection With Different Languages Rashmika was born and brought up in Kodagu and identifies Kodava Takk as her mother tongue. She explained that because there is no major film industry operating in her mother tongue, language could not become a fixed boundary for her career. “I treat all languages as my own,” she told, explaining how her journey expanded from one film industry to another. According to Rashmika, her move into Telugu cinema was encouraged by fans, and a similar process happened with Hindi cinema. Her career subsequently expanded into Tamil and other language markets. That background is important when looking at the criticism surrounding her accent. Rather than presenting herself as someone who has mastered every language she has worked in, Rashmika openly acknowledged that she is still navigating several linguistic environments. “Jack of All Trades and Master of None” When asked about comments concerning her accent, Rashmika responded with a self-deprecating description of her linguistic journey. “I’m not necessarily good at any language,” she said, before describing herself as a “Jack of all trades and master of none.” Her point was not that language does not matter to her. Quite the opposite: she explained that being able to communicate with audiences in their own language is her way of showing respect. She also said that she has become accustomed to hearing different opinions about the way she speaks and prefers not to let what she considers unnecessary criticism distract her from her work. Why Rashmika Does Not Want Accent Criticism to Define Her Work For Rashmika, the central responsibility of an actor is the performance rather than responding to every criticism surrounding it. She told Hindustan Times that her focus is on telling good stories and delivering her best performance on set. Her comments suggest that she sees the multilingual nature of her career as part of the work itself rather than something that needs to be justified every time she enters a new industry. This approach also reflects how her career has developed. Rashmika made her Kannada film debut with Kirik Party, subsequently worked in Telugu cinema, made her Tamil debut with Sulthan and entered Hindi cinema with Goodbye. Her career has since increasingly crossed language and industry boundaries. Interestingly, Rashmika had spoken about this linguistic mix years earlier. In a 2021 interview with Cinema Express, she described herself as a “jack of all trades and master of none” while discussing how working across languages had affected the way she spoke. That makes her latest comments less of a sudden response and more of a continuation of an idea she has expressed throughout her career. A Pan-India Career That Keeps Expanding Rashmika's comments arrive at a particularly busy point in her career. She is currently attached to several projects spanning different genres and audiences. Her upcoming Ranabaali, starring alongside Vijay Deverakonda, is scheduled for theatrical release on October 16, 2026, according to the film's official teaser released by Mythri Movie Makers. She is also set to headline Mysaa, an action thriller scheduled for worldwide theatrical release on November 27, 2026. Most recently, Rashmika was officially announced as the actor portraying legendary Carnatic vocalist M.S. Subbulakshmi in M.S - A Legacy On Screen. The film is directed by Gowtam Tinnanuri, with music by Anirudh Ravichander, and was formally launched in Chennai on September 16, 2026. The M.S. Subbulakshmi project adds another dimension to the language conversation because the role requires Rashmika to engage with a cultural and musical legacy deeply associated with South Indian classical traditions. The Celebrity Hour Take Rashmika Mandanna's latest comments are notable because she has chosen to address the language debate without pretending that linguistic perfection is the measure of her career. Her filmography itself demonstrates the unusual path she has taken: moving between Kannada, Telugu, Tamil and Hindi projects rather than remaining identified with one particular regional industry. Her explanation that this happened organically also provides useful context for understanding why her accent can sound different depending on the language and role. The more significant takeaway is that Rashmika appears to view multilingual filmmaking as an ongoing learning process. Her “jack of all trades” description is therefore less a claim of linguistic mastery than an acknowledgement of the reality of working across multiple Indian film industries. With Ranabaali, Mysaa and the M.S. Subbulakshmi biopic among her current projects, that multilingual journey is continuing into another phase with increasingly varied characters and cultural settings. Sources & Verification This report was prepared using Rashmika Mandanna's September 2026 interview, plus official promotional material from Mythri Movie Makers for Ranabaali. Earlier comments from her 2021 Cinema Express interview were also reviewed to establish the historical context of her “jack of all trades” remark.

The Golmaal franchise is officially returning to cinemas in the first week of 2027. Rohit Shetty has announced that Golmaal 5 will release theatrically on January 8, 2027, bringing Ajay Devgn and several familiar members of the franchise back for another comedy adventure. The release-date announcement arrived with a new poster featuring Ajay Devgn, Arshad Warsi, Kunal Kemmu, Shreyas Talpade, Tusshar Kapoor and Sharman Joshi. Interestingly, Akshay Kumar who is officially part of the cast is not seen in the newly released poster. Rohit Shetty accompanied the announcement with a message centred on “laughter, fun, joy, happiness and family,” confirming the tone the filmmaker wants associated with the fifth instalment. Golmaal 5 Gets a January 8, 2027 Release Date Rohit Shetty announced the theatrical release date on September 19 through his social-media channels. Golmaal 5 will arrive in cinemas on January 8, 2027. The announcement marks the franchise's return to the big screen after nearly a decade. The previous instalment, Golmaal Again, was released in 2017. The new film is directed by Rohit Shetty and continues the ensemble-driven format that has been central to the franchise since its beginning. The January release also positions Golmaal 5 as one of the major Hindi theatrical releases scheduled to open the new year. The New Poster Brings the Original Gang Back Together The newly unveiled poster leans heavily into the visual identity associated with the franchise. Ajay Devgn is positioned at the front while Arshad Warsi, Shreyas Talpade, Tusshar Kapoor, Kunal Kemmu and Sharman Joshi are shown together in the chaotic ensemble setup. The image deliberately plays on the exaggerated physical comedy that has become part of the Golmaal brand. Sharman Joshi's presence is particularly notable. He appeared in the original Golmaal: Fun Unlimited, released in 2006, but did not return for the subsequent instalments. His return gives the fifth film a connection to the franchise's earliest chapter. Akshay Kumar Is Part of Golmaal 5 but Missing From the New Poster There is an important distinction between the film's official cast and the people visible in the latest poster. Rohit Shetty Picturez's official production video for Golmaal 5 lists: Ajay Devgn Akshay Kumar Arshad Warsi Kunal Kemmu Shreyas Talpade Tusshar Kapoor Sharman Joshi as the film's star cast. However, Akshay Kumar does not appear in the newly released group poster. That omission is worth noting because Akshay's involvement represents one of the biggest additions to the franchise. Rather than assuming a reason for his absence from the poster, it is more accurate to simply state that the first-look artwork released with the date announcement focuses on the returning Golmaal ensemble. His character, screen time and precise role in the story have not been fully detailed in the material released so far. Rohit Shetty Has Already Started the Film's Production Golmaal 5 is not merely a release-date announcement. Production has already been underway. Rohit Shetty Picturez released an official “Golmaal 5 Shoot Begins” video in March 2026. The production video confirmed the principal cast and identified Rohit Shetty as the director. Later reporting indicated that the film had been shooting through 2026, including a schedule in Ooty. Film began in April and that dialogue portions had been completed by August, with songs still part of the remaining production work at that stage. This makes the latest announcement different from an early project reveal: the fifth Golmaal is already well into production and now has a fixed theatrical date. What Makes Sharman Joshi's Return Significant? Among the returning actors, Sharman Joshi's comeback to the franchise stands out. Joshi played Laxman in the first Golmaal film, Golmaal: Fun Unlimited, which was released in 2006. He did not feature in the second, third or fourth instalments. His presence in Golmaal 5 therefore reconnects the new film with the original ensemble after an absence of almost two decades. The film now has actors associated with different phases of the franchise sharing the same cast. Ajay Devgn, Arshad Warsi, Tusshar Kapoor, Shreyas Talpade and Kunal Kemmu have been part of the later Golmaal identity, while Sharman's return brings back a performer from the original 2006 line-up. The Golmaal Franchise Is Returning After Nearly a Decade The first Golmaal arrived in 2006, followed by Golmaal Returns in 2008, Golmaal 3 in 2010 and Golmaal Again in 2017. The fourth film became a major commercial release, and the franchise subsequently remained one of Rohit Shetty's most recognisable comedy properties. The long gap since Golmaal Again means the fifth film arrives with a cast that is familiar to audiences but with a new release window and a new addition in Akshay Kumar. The return also comes at a time when established Bollywood franchises continue to be an important part of theatrical programming, particularly for films built around recognisable characters and ensemble casts. What Has Been Confirmed About the Story? At this stage, the makers have revealed considerably more about the cast and release than about the actual plot. The official production material confirms the principal ensemble and Rohit Shetty's direction, while the latest announcement establishes the January 8, 2027 theatrical date. A detailed official synopsis explaining the new storyline has not been prominently released with the date announcement. That means descriptions of specific character arcs, villains or plot twists should be treated cautiously until the production team releases further information. The Celebrity Hour Take The biggest development surrounding Golmaal 5 is not simply the release date. It is the combination of franchise continuity and a significant new addition. Rohit Shetty is bringing back the visual and comedic identity associated with the earlier films, while adding Akshay Kumar to an ensemble led by Ajay Devgn. At the same time, Sharman Joshi's return creates a direct link to the 2006 original. The new poster reinforces that nostalgia by putting the familiar group at the centre of the announcement. Yet Akshay Kumar's absence from the artwork leaves one obvious question open: how exactly will the new actor fit into the established Golmaal universe? The answer will likely come through the film's promotional campaign, character material and eventual trailer rather than the release-date poster alone. For now, the confirmed picture is straightforward: Golmaal 5 is in production, Rohit Shetty is directing it, the core ensemble is returning, Akshay Kumar is officially part of the cast, and the film is scheduled to reach cinemas on January 8, 2027. Sources & Verification This report was independently prepared using Rohit Shetty Picturez's official production video as a primary source for the film's director and announced cast. The September 19 release-date and poster announcement was cross-checked against reporting by established outlets Filmfare and Cinema Express. The article distinguishes between the confirmed cast and the actors visible in the latest poster. Akshay Kumar's inclusion in the film is confirmed by the official production material, while his absence from the newly released poster is treated only as an observable detail. No explanation for that absence has been presented as fact.

Mumbai: The Film Federation of India has selected Santosh Davakhar’s Marathi film Gondhal as India’s official entry for the Best International Feature Film category at the 99th Academy Awards, leaving major Hindi titles including Dhurandhar and Dhurandhar: The Revenge outside the final selection. The decision came after a field of 33 submitted films was considered by the FFI’s jury. The panel included filmmaker P. Sheshadri, actor Vijay Patkar, filmmaker Hutu Kanodia, Shanti Kumar, Sandeep Parashar, Sanjay Patil, Sabu Joseph, Anil Thomas, Viveck Vaswani, Bijon Dasgupta, Haasan Vasan and Tannishtha Chatterjee. The selection has naturally drawn attention because Dhurandhar, starring Ranveer Singh and directed by Aditya Dhar, was among the films submitted for consideration. However, the jury’s decision should not be interpreted as a verdict on the film’s commercial success or popularity. The Oscar selection process evaluates films for a specific international competition, and the FFI jury ultimately chose Gondhal. What happened in the Oscar selection process? The FFI opened submissions in August for films seeking consideration for the 99th Academy Awards. The eligibility process required submitted films to meet the applicable rules, including requirements concerning Indian production participation, language, theatrical release and documentation. A total of 33 films eventually entered the selection process. They represented several Indian languages, including Hindi, Marathi, Telugu, Gujarati, Tamil, Malayalam and Nagamese. After the jury's deliberations, Gondhal emerged as the selected film. The announcement was made in Mumbai on September 18, 2026. Why was Dhurandhar not selected? The available reporting establishes that Dhurandhar was among the films considered and that Gondhal was ultimately selected. However, it is important not to turn the result into a claim that the jury rejected Dhurandhar for one particular flaw unless the jury member's explanation specifically establishes that. Viveck Vaswani was part of the 13-member jury, meaning his comments are relevant to understanding the deliberations. But the selection itself was a collective jury decision, not Vaswani’s individual choice. The distinction matters. Being one of the films in contention does not mean that Dhurandhar was expected to be selected, nor does the selection of Gondhal establish that Dhurandhar was considered unsuitable for international audiences. The jury was choosing one Indian film from a diverse field, rather than determining which film was the country's biggest commercial success. Gondhal gets the Oscar ticket Directed by Santosh Davakhar, Gondhal is a Marathi thriller rooted in Maharashtra's traditional Gondhal ritual and folk-performance culture. The film follows Suman, a married woman whose personal relationships become increasingly complicated by desire, deception and difficult circumstances. What begins as a relationship-driven story develops into a thriller. The film had already received recognition before the Oscar selection. Davakhar won the Silver Peacock Award for Best Director at the 56th International Film Festival of India in 2025. Gondhal was also reported to have received recognition at the Bengaluru International Film Festival and Pune International Film Festival. Those festival credentials provide relevant context for the jury's choice. Dhurandhar was competing against 32 other films The Oscar conversation around Dhurandhar can easily become focused on its scale and commercial performance, but the selection process was considerably broader. The 33-film field included titles such as Border 2, 120 Bahadur, Haq, Peddi, Irumudi, Dorothy, Main Vaapas Aaunga, Bison: Kaalamadan, Gandhi Talks, Ikkis, Hanuman Ansh, Angh and several regional-language films. That makes the decision less about a direct one-on-one contest between Dhurandhar and Gondhal and more about how the jury assessed a broad cross-section of Indian cinema. Commercial success and Oscar selection are different questions One of the most important points for audiences is that box-office performance is not the same thing as Oscar selection criteria. Dhurandhar and its sequel became major commercial performers, and the franchise was among the most prominent Hindi film properties in the submission field. Contemporary reporting has highlighted the franchise's large domestic and international commercial footprint. But India's Oscar entry is selected through the FFI's jury process. Once a film becomes India's submission, it still has to go through the Academy's own International Feature Film process. In other words, being a commercial hit does not automatically make a film India's Oscar entry. What happens to Dhurandhar now? The film's absence from India's official Oscar submission does not prevent it from having an international audience or recognition through other routes. However, India's official entry for the International Feature Film category is now Gondhal. The film will represent India in the Oscar race, subject to the Academy's subsequent selection stages. The 99th Academy Awards are scheduled for March 14, 2027, at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles. The Academy, rather than the FFI jury, will ultimately determine which films advance through the International Feature Film selection process. The Celebrity Hour Take The key takeaway from the Dhurandhar Oscar discussion is that commercial scale and Oscar suitability are separate conversations. Dhurandhar entered the FFI process as one of 33 eligible submissions. Its large audience and commercial footprint made its omission notable, but the selection of Gondhal cannot automatically be described as a judgment that one film is universally better than another. The jury's task was to select one film to represent India in a particular Academy category. Gondhal arrived with its own festival recognition, regional cultural setting and thriller narrative, and the jury ultimately chose it. For Dhurandhar, the decision closes the route of representing India through the official International Feature Film submission for the 99th Oscars. It does not, by itself, change the film's existing commercial record or broader cultural footprint. For Gondhal, the selection marks the beginning of a different challenge: competing in the Academy's international field after becoming India's official submission. The bigger significance for Indian cinema The selection also puts another Marathi-language film on the international awards map. Gondhal becomes the fourth Marathi film to represent India at the Oscars, according to contemporary reporting. Its selection follows earlier Marathi-language entries and reinforces the presence of regional Indian cinema in India's Oscar submissions. That context is particularly relevant because this year's shortlist of submissions was multilingual. Four Marathi films were among the 33 entries, alongside films in Hindi, Telugu, Gujarati, Tamil, Malayalam, Nagamese and other categories. The result therefore reflects not only the exclusion of a major Hindi franchise but also the selection of a regional-language film with a distinct cultural setting.For now, Gondhal carries India's official Oscar entry, while Dhurandhar remains one of the notable films that competed for the country's nomination Sources & Verification This report was prepared using contemporary coverage of the Film Federation of India’s 2027 Oscar selection, including reporting that identifies the 33 submitted films, the 13-member jury and Gondhal as India's selected entry. FFI selection-process information was cross-checked with earlier reporting on the eligibility and submission procedure. The article distinguishes the confirmed selection result from interpretations about why individual films were not chosen. Important editorial note: I could verify that Viveck Vaswani was a member of the jury, but the currently accessible sources did not provide a sufficiently reliable verbatim record of a detailed Vaswani explanation specifically saying why Dhurandhar was rejected. Therefore, this version does not invent or attribute a specific rationale to him that I could not independently verify.

Mumbai: Deepika Padukone and Ranveer Singh have become parents for the second time. The couple welcomed a baby girl on September 19, 2026, and announced the arrival through a joint social-media post, confirming that their daughter Dua is now a big sister. The announcement was deliberately simple. Deepika and Ranveer shared an image featuring a newborn baby's footprint along with the words “Welcome Baby Girl” and the date 19.9.2026. The names “Dua, Deepika and Ranveer” appeared at the bottom of the announcement. The couple did not reveal the newborn's name in the post. The news was followed by congratulatory messages from several members of the Hindi film industry, including Kriti Sanon, Anil Kapoor, Vicky Kaushal and others. Kriti Sanon Celebrates Dua Becoming a Big Sister Among the first celebrity reactions was one from Kriti Sanon, who congratulated the couple and specifically celebrated the arrival of Dua's younger sister. Sanon wrote that Dua now has a baby sister and described the new arrival as a blessing. Her comment was posted beneath the couple's announcement and was subsequently reported by multiple publications. Anil Kapoor also joined the celebrations, commenting with congratulations and a message about having daughters. Vicky Kaushal, Shreya Ghoshal, Angad Bedi and several other celebrities also shared their wishes for the family. The reactions have made one detail particularly clear: while the newborn's name has not yet been announced, her arrival has already been publicly celebrated as the newest addition to the Padukone-Singh family. Dua Padukone Singh Is Now a Big Sister The couple's first daughter, Dua Padukone Singh, was born on September 8, 2024. Her birth was announced by Deepika and Ranveer through a similar “Welcome Baby Girl” post. The couple later revealed her name as Dua in November 2024. Nearly two years later, Dua has officially entered a new chapter as an elder sister. The timing is also notable. Both of Deepika and Ranveer's daughters have been born in September, with Dua arriving on September 8, 2024, and the couple's second daughter arriving on September 19, 2026. From Pregnancy Announcement to the Birth of Their Second Daughter Deepika and Ranveer had announced the second pregnancy on April 19, 2026. Instead of making a conventional pregnancy announcement, the couple shared a photograph featuring Dua holding a positive pregnancy test. The image served as their confirmation that the family was preparing to welcome another child. The announcement also established Dua's upcoming role as a big sister. Over the following months, the couple largely kept their family life private while occasionally sharing glimpses with followers. In September, they released photographs from a maternity shoot featuring Deepika, Ranveer and Dua together. The family was also seen visiting Mumbai's Siddhivinayak Temple shortly before the birth. Reports published after the announcement said Deepika and Ranveer visited the temple on September 18, a day before announcing the arrival of their daughter. The Couple Has Kept the Newborn's Identity Private One detail that should not be overlooked is what Deepika and Ranveer have not announced. The couple's September 19 post confirms that their second child is a girl, but it does not disclose her name. The announcement also does not show the baby's face. Therefore, any name circulating online should currently be treated as unconfirmed unless and until the family makes an official announcement. This approach is consistent with how the couple handled Dua's arrival. They initially announced their first daughter's birth without revealing her name, later introducing “Dua” publicly. A New Chapter for Deepika and Ranveer Deepika and Ranveer married in November 2018 after working together on Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Goliyon Ki Raasleela Ram-Leela. Their professional collaborations subsequently included Bajirao Mastani and 83. Their family has since become an important part of their public story, although both actors have generally controlled how much they reveal about their children. The arrival of their second daughter now expands the family from three to four. For Ranveer, the news also comes during a busy professional period following his work in the Dhurandhar franchise. Aditya Dhar, who directed the films, was among the industry figures whose reaction to the announcement was noted by social-media users, although the couple's own birth announcement remains the primary confirmation of the news. Deepika, meanwhile, has several major projects associated with her upcoming slate, including King, directed by Siddharth Anand and featuring Shah Rukh Khan and Suhana Khan. The Celebrity Hour Take The significance of this announcement goes beyond another celebrity birth announcement. Deepika and Ranveer have handled both of their pregnancy journeys with a clear balance between public celebration and personal privacy. The September 19 post gives audiences the essential news a baby girl has arrived without turning the newborn into a public spectacle. The most immediate change is within the family itself: Dua is now a big sister. Kriti Sanon's reaction captured that change directly, while the couple's understated announcement kept the focus on the family's happiness rather than on unnecessary details. For now, the identity and name of the newborn remain private. Until Deepika and Ranveer choose to share more, the confirmed story is simply that their second daughter was born on September 19, 2026, and that their family has grown by one. Sources & Verification This report was independently prepared using Deepika Padukone and Ranveer Singh's September 19, 2026 joint announcement as the primary confirmation of the birth .The April 2026 pregnancy announcement was separately cross-checked against contemporaneous coverage. The newborn's name has not been treated as confirmed, because it was not included in the couple's September 19 announcement. Celebrity comments have been attributed to the publicly reported reactions rather than presented as independent facts.