Janhvi Kapoor’s Peddi Controversy Raises Questions About Consent in Cinema
The debate sparked by Janhvi Kapoor’s transformation for Telugu film Peddi has brought into focus some difficult questions around the actor’s entitlement to determine the depiction of his or her body, looks and work on screen. The controversy has also shed light on the legal interplay of the actor, director and film producer under Indian copyright law.
Peddi, which features Ram Charan and Janhvi Kapoor and is directed by Buchi Babu Sana was released on 4 June 2026. Immediately after its release, many viewers trolled Kapoor’s character Achiyyamma and started pointing out the camera angles, focus on her body and romantic sequences.
Such criticism centred on the decision to whop the female lead and the question of whether actors have greater control over how their performances will ultimately be shown.
After the backlash, director Buchi Babu Sana issued an official apology that “for the pain caused due to particular scenes” and confirmed there would be a reshoot of the conflicting segments. It was later reported that some shots had been cut or altered.
A broader legal question is at stake in this debate. By signing a film contract with an actor, does the producer gain total dominion over the actor’s image? Or does the actor still have some say over the actor’s image in terms of consent and respect?
What Did Janhvi Kapoor Say About Consent and Camera Angles?
The outrage was renewed when an older interview of Janhvi Kapoor on consent and sensual scenes being shot was circulated again.
Need Help With Your PhD or LLM Thesis?
Explore our thesis and dissertation writing support services for PhD and LLM students. Get subject-specific academic assistance for your research project.
Explore Our Services →In an interview with Raj Shamani, Kapoor said that when someone is sensual in any moment, they don’t see their actions in a sensual manner, but if a performer is sexualised without their consent then it is wrong.
Additionally she touched upon how actors may have trouble when they object to how a camera is shot or how it looks when shooting. Kapoor said that actors should be able to complain about what is being shot without being called unprofessional.
Note:- The above comments were made prior to the Peddi controversy and should not be automatically assumed as an outright accusation on the people behind the film.
In other events, screenshots of supposed private exchanges linked to Kapoor appeared on social media. The messages supposedly expressed dissent over some camera angles, but their veracity has not been corroborated, and they shouldn’t be taken as conclusive evidence of what happened on set. [Cite refs={[“turn301857search0″,”turn301857search4”]}]
This is significant because the criticism of a film does not translate into the breach of the contract by the actor.
Who Has Creative Control Over a Film Under Indian Law?
By and large, producers and directors have the first say in the overall creative and commercial development of a film.
The director generally controls the artistic or dramatic aspects of the film, and visualizes the script while guiding the technical crew and actors in the fulfillment of that vision. The producer generally deals with the financing and making of the movie.
As per Section 2(d)(v) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer is considered as the author of a cinematograph film. In general, Section 17 defines the author as the first owner of the copyright, with statutory exceptions and agreements.
By default, then, the copyright in the finished film will be owned by the producer of the finished film, incorporating the exhibition copy.
On the other hand, copyright ownership cannot confer autonomous rights to, or exclusive authority over, an actor’s body or personal integrity.
The actor’s responsibilities are also covered under the agreement he entered into with the producer. The contract may specify the character of the role, the filming conditions, the promotion commitments, the use of the performance and the restrictions agreed upon by the parties.
Thus, completing the film is a matter separate from giving approval of shots.
Can An Actor Back Out of an Intimate Scene After Signing a Contract for a Film?
Whether an actor can refuse a scene also depends on the contract and the context in which the scene was presented.
Film agreements can include clauses about intimate scenes, nudity, body contact, body doubles and alterations to the script.
When an actor has explicitly consented to perform a specific scene, refusing to do so can lead to questions of contract. But an overall contract to act in a film should not be read as an unqualified acceptance of all physical closeness.
Consent to one scene is not consent to a significantly different scene.
For instance, an actor may be willing to film a romantic scene, but not be willing to remove their clothes, to perform a surprise sexual act, or to do an entirely different type of filmmaking.
Section 14 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that the consent to the contract must be free from Coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation and mistake, as the case may be under the Act.
Whether the particular contractual arrangement was entered into freely and whether its terms embrace the conduct now complained of will depend on the facts.
Most significantly, contractual consent and physical act consent are not equivalent. Disagreement over contractual matters cannot be used to excuse physical behavior that is otherwise criminal.
Can an Actor Object to Camera Angles or Editing Decisions?
Angles and editing are arguably some of the most important elements of film. These techniques can shape audience perception of a character, and even dramatically change the effect of an actor’s performance.
A shot which was intended to be romantic or dramatic can become more sexualised when it is captured using specific closeups or edited to focus on certain parts of the actor’s body.
This is not to say that everyone has an automatic right to block every possible angle or the edit of a film either.
This approval is normally a matter of contractual negotiations.
A performer might ask for clauses that state they have to approve any particularly intimate takes beforehand, sets of rules about filming someone’s body, permission to have input on big changes to a sensitive scene, or approval of footage before it makes the marketing cut.
If such protections have been specifically provided for in the contract a breach thereof may constitute a contractual claim.
Without a settled approval right, it might be more hard to win a legal battle over common artistic decisions.
But the disclosure of a form does not mean that other protections do not apply where there is a dispute over unauthorised intimate material, deception as to identity or conduct in the course of filming.
Performer’s Rights under the Copyright Act, 1957?
Performers have independent rights from the copyrights to the completed work.
Section 38 allows the performer to have a special right, called the performer’s right. Section 38A gives the performer various exclusive rights as to the recording, reproducing, and communicating of performances, subject to the Act.
But for those making films, it is the one in Section 38A(2) that is of concern.
A performer will have little or no say in objecting to the producer’s having the benefit of the performer’s rights in cinematograph films once the performer has agreed in writing that the performer’s performance may be incorporated in them.
This clause provides film producers a high degree of legal certainty in their film distribution and commercial exploitation activities.
The performer’s moral rights are also provided for in Section 38B. A performer has the right to attribution of authorship and the right to object to derogatory treatment of a performance by way of distortion, mutilation or other modification that is detrimental to their reputation.
The rule also stipulates that, by way of example, the deleting of part of a performance for editing purposes, the introduction of a recording into a restricted time-scale or the carrying out of purely technical modifications to the performance would not in themselves be prejudicial to reputation.
