Veteran actor Govind Namdev has publicly distanced himself from the controversial film Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy, claiming that he was not informed about the project’s actual direction when he agreed to be a part of it. The actor recently stated that the film he was initially approached for was presented to him very differently from what has now emerged.
Speaking about the controversy, Namdev revealed that he believed he was working on a project titled Sambhal. According to him, he was later informed about another film connected to the subject, but was told that his involvement would be limited to courtroom sequences based on publicly documented legal proceedings.
Namdev stated that the version of the project presented to him focused solely on courtroom events and legal proceedings. Since he believed the material was based on publicly available records, he saw no issue in participating. However, after seeing the promotional material, he felt the film had moved far beyond the limited scope that had originally been explained to him.
Addressing speculation surrounding the controversy, Namdev emphasised that he shares a cordial relationship with Salman Khan and would never intentionally associate himself with a film designed to harm the actor’s reputation. He also rejected any suggestion that he supported narratives connected to gang-related references surrounding the case.
The controversy surrounding Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy has intensified in recent weeks due to perceived similarities between one of its central characters and Salman Khan. While the makers have maintained that the film is a work of fiction, critics and observers have pointed to similarities in appearance, styling, and characterisation that have fueled debate online.
The matter has also reached the legal arena. Salman Khan and his legal team have reportedly approached the court seeking a stay on the film’s production, promotion, and release. According to the actor’s representatives, the project allegedly infringes upon his personality and publicity rights while presenting aspects of an ongoing legal matter in a potentially misleading manner.