Eros issued a statement saying, “We at Eros International Media Limited categorically reject and strongly object to the unfounded and sensationalist remarks made by Mr Aanand L. Rai regarding the AI-enhanced re-release of Raanjhanaa. These remarks are not only factually incorrect and misleading, but appear to be a deliberate negative PR stunt designed to distract public and industry attention from serious and ongoing legal matters concerning Mr Rai and Colour Yellow Productions Pvt. Ltd. We view Mr Rai’s public outburst, especially timed just days after these disclosures, as a conscious attempt to shift focus away from the legal and governance issues he currently faces. It is unfortunate that a filmmaker of his stature would attempt to conflate legal accountability with creative victimhood. It would be best if Mr Rai respectfully acknowledges the ownership of IP as per law of the land and his written undertakings, rather than use media unfairly as a platform to promote himself and thrive on unwarranted sensationalism.”

Defending their decision to re-release Raanjhanaa with an alternate ending, the studio states, “The re-release of Raanjhanaa in the Tamil market is part of Eros International’s broader strategy to refresh and reintroduce classic cinematic works to newer audiences in regional markets. Over a decade since its original release, the film continues to resonate deeply, and the reinterpretation of its ending aims to extend its emotional legacy and relevance. This is a creative reimagining, not a replacement, and is consistent with global industry practices including anniversary editions, alternate cuts, and modernized remasters.”

They continue, “We are the sole and exclusive copyright holder and producer of Raanjhanaa, and are fully entitled, both legally and ethically, to adapt and re-release the film. This includes re-imagining certain elements using advanced tools such as generative AI to reach newer audiences while preserving the original’s artistic soul. Contrary to the claims of “artistic vandalism”, our re-release is a respectful creative reinterpretation – clearly labelled and separate from the original version – offered as an addition to, not a replacement of, the original. Such practices are common in global cinema, and reflect our longstanding commitment to innovation, audience engagement, and cultural preservation. We reserve all our rights and intend to take all appropriate legal and remedial action to protect our reputation, brand equity, and commercial interests.”

​The studio also stated that they have initiated legal proceedings against Rai’s production house. “It is important to bring to light that Eros has initiated legal proceedings before the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 against Colour Yellow Productions Pvt. Ltd., and its directors, Mr Aanand L Rai and Mrs Yogita Rai. The allegations include serious acts of mismanagement, lack of transparency in financial disclosures, unauthorized and related-party transactions without board approvals. On June 24, 2025, the Tribunal acknowledged these concerns and has ordered interim relief in favour of Eros,” said the studio.

​Raanjhanaa  which had hit the screens in 2013, is being re-released in Tamil Nadu with an altered AI generated ending, possibly a first for the industry. While director Aanand L Rai has slammed the move, the studio Eros International Media Limited describes this as a “creative reimagining” and says that the director’s comments are an attempt “to distract public and industry attention from serious and ongoing legal matters.”

The Tamil version of the unrequited romance drama, starring Dhanush and Sonam Kapoor, was titled Ambikapathy. Reportedly, Eros International has sold the AI-edited version of the film to a Tamil Nadu-based distributor. “The timeless love story returns to the big screen! #Ambikapathy rereleasing in theatres from August 1st... A new ending powered by AI,” Upswing Entertainment said while making the announcement earlier this month.

--------------------------------------------

After Raanjhanaa director Aanand L Rai expressed his displeasure at the AI-generated ending for his 2013 film, the production house Eros Media World reacted to his statement. “This is a creative reimagining, not a replacement, and is consistent with global industry practices. We categorically reject Mr Rai’s allegations, which are not only factually incorrect, but also legally unfounded. The re-release is a respectful reinterpretation and not a tampering of the original. It is clearly positioned as an alternate, AI-enhanced version — akin to classic cuts or re-edits seen globally,” Pradeep Dwivedi, the company’s CEO, told PTI.

The producer of a cinematographic work, under Indian law, is its legal author and moral rights vest with the producer, not the director, the company added. Asked if the film’s team was kept in the loop, they said they hold the sole copyright and producer rights of Raanjhanaa, including the legal rights.

The company added: “We regret that he (Aanand) has chosen to publicly distance himself from the project, despite the film being a product of collaborative effort where rights are lawfully vested with the producer. Our re-release is an homage to the film’s legacy, not a deviation from it. All rights, decisions, and creative control related to Raanjhanaa remain solely with Eros International Media Limited as the exclusive copyright holder.”

We reached out to Aanand, but got no response till the time of going to press.

The film has been re-released in Tamil Nadu with an AI-generated “happy” ending, reports PTI. The Hindi film was released as Ambikapathy in the Tamil version in 2013. Raanjhanaa director Aanand L Rai told PTI that he is “heartbroken that this is the future we’re heading towards, where intent and authorship are disposable”. He added that he will dissociate himself “from such a reckless and dystopian experiment”. A part of his statement read, “Raanjhanaa didn’t need a new climax. It had heart, and honesty. To see its ending altered without a word of discussion is a gross violation of the film.”