The Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE) has issued a non-cooperation directive against actor Ranveer Singh following his exit from Farhan Akhtar's Don 3. But the question remains: Is this ban legally binding, does the film body have the right to issue such a directive, and can the actor challenge it in court?
What was the dispute
In August 2023, Excel Entertainment, the production house run by filmmaker Farhan Akhtar and his partner Ritesh Sidhwani, unveiled Don 3 with Ranveer Singh in the titular role, signalling a major franchise reboot after Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan had previously played the character. The dispute arose after Ranveer Singh decided to walk out of the project, one he had been signed on for nearly two years, citing the absence of a locked script and creative dissatisfaction.
Why did Ranveer Singh walk out
Ranveer's side maintains that the film never reached a stage of creative readiness. According to him, there was no locked script even after years of development and multiple story elements remained uncertain. He allegedly felt the project lacked the scale and strength promised to him at the time of signing. It is further alleged that the actor was unhappy with project management, did not receive an advance, and was not compensated for time lost on other shelved projects. Excel Entertainment, however, has rejected this version entirely. Farhan Akhtar has said the script was developed and shared in stages and that Ranveer had approved each draft without objection. From the producers' perspective, the actor's sudden exit came after extensive planning and spending. His departure in December 2025 came just days after the box office success of Dhurandhar, the Aditya Dhar-directed spy thriller. The production house claimed it had already invested heavily in pre-production work — including international location recce, travel arrangements, hotel bookings and logistics for a large crew — and that the loss amounted to Rs 45 crore, which it said should be settled entirely by Ranveer Singh.
How did the issue reach FWICE
The dispute was first taken to the Producers Guild of India, where two closed-door meetings were held with senior producers and studio heads to hear both sides. The matter then moved to the Indian Film and Television Directors' Association (IFTDA), with a formal complaint filed on April 11. Since IFTDA is one of the 32 craft unions affiliated under the FWICE umbrella, it escalated the matter to FWICE, the parent federation. FWICE addressed the matter at a press conference in Mumbai on May 25, accusing Ranveer Singh of failing to respond to repeated requests to appear before the body. The federation claimed it had sent multiple notices, but received no response until May 23, when Ranveer's secretary replied via email, dismissing FWICE's jurisdiction over the matter. Unsatisfied with this, FWICE issued a Non-Cooperation Directive instructing all 32 of its affiliated craft unions, including technicians, spot boys and lightmen, not to work with Ranveer Singh until the dispute is resolved.
Is the FWICE directive legally binding
The short answer is no. FWICE is registered as a trade union and is not a judicial body — it does not have the power to ban anyone in a legal sense. "What FWICE has issued is essentially an internal collective action instruction to its members — a labour solidarity measure, not a statutory directive. The only consequence for a defying member would be internal union discipline," says Vivek Narayan Sharma, senior practising counsel and constitutional expert, Supreme Court of India. However, the practical impact should not be underestimated. FWICE claims more than four lakh members fall under its umbrella. If even a majority of technicians, spot boys and craftspeople comply with the directive, the operational reality of filming becomes extremely difficult. As the lawyer puts it, "while it is toothless in law, it has real industry muscle."
Does this dispute fall within FWICE's jurisdiction
Legal experts say it does not. The dispute between Ranveer Singh and Excel Entertainment is a civil or commercial matter — and FWICE has no statutory authority to pass binding orders in disputes of this nature. "Ranveer Singh is not an FWICE member or employee. He is an independent contractor and a principal party to a commercial contract with Excel Entertainment. The dispute is between two commercial parties — an actor and a production house — over an alleged breach of a talent agreement," Sharma said. Ranveer's own team made this argument when his secretary's email dismissed FWICE's jurisdiction. Legal experts say that the response was legally accurate.
Can Ranveer Singh challenge this in court?
Yes, and he has strong grounds to do so. Ranveer Singh can approach the Bombay high court, which has jurisdiction over FWICE, seeking an injunction against the directive. The first ground is his fundamental right to livelihood. "The Supreme Court has held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to livelihood. A directive that effectively blacklists a person from their profession can be challenged as an infringement of this right, especially when issued without following principles of natural justice," Sharma said. The second ground is a procedural one. FWICE heard only the producers' side before acting. "A ban issued without a full hearing of the opposite party is procedurally vulnerable. Courts have consistently held that any quasi-judicial or administrative action adverse to a person must follow audi alteram partem — the principle of hearing the other side," he further added. The third ground goes to the heart of FWICE's authority. "The directive can be challenged as ultra vires — beyond the powers of the body. Under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, agreements that restrain a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business are void. A blanket industry-wide non-cooperation directive operates as a restraint of trade."
What about the Rs 45 crore damages claim?
The Rs 45 crore claim by Excel Entertainment is not straightforward. Legal experts say the dispute has significant unanswered questions and some of them could work in Ranveer's favour. If Ranveer can establish that a locked script was never delivered, his exit may not constitute a breach at all. And even if it does, Excel will have to prove it in the court that the pre-production spend was reasonable. On top of that, the FWICE directive itself could become a legal liability for the federation if it causes Ranveer provable financial loss. "If Ranveer can establish that a condition precedent — delivery of a complete, locked script — was never fulfilled, his exit may not constitute a breach at all. A contract that was never properly crystallised is difficult to enforce. Under Section 73 of the Contract Act, a party claiming damages must prove actual loss and show that they took reasonable steps to mitigate. Excel must demonstrate that the pre-production spend was reasonable and not incurred recklessly after signs of trouble appeared. And if the directive causes Ranveer provable financial loss, he may have a counter-claim in damages against FWICE and its office bearers for unlawful collective action," Sharma further added.
