Shankar Finally Breaks Silence on ED Seizing His Properties!

Director Shankar has had a harsh beginning to 2025, starting with the box office disappointment of Game Changer, featuring Ram Charan, taken after by an unexpected Enforcement Directorate (ED) strike. The eminent filmmaker presently finds himself entrapped in a legitimate fight as the ED has seized resources worth ₹10.11 crore in association with the affirmed story robbery of the Tamil film Robo.

In a strongly worded reaction, Shankar condemned the ED's activities, calling them illegal and unjustifiable. He pointed out that the Madras High Court had as of now rejected petitioner Aroor Tamilanathan's claims with respect to the story rights of ROBO, however, the ED continued with the resource seizure exclusively based on a complaint. Expressing deep disappointment, he expressed that disregarding a court decision and taking one-sided activity sets a dangerous precedent. Shankar stated that in case the ED does not revoke the order, he will request against their choice through lawful implies.

The filmmaker too addressed his concerns freely, highlighting that three of his undaunted properties had been incidentally seized beneath what he depicted as unjustifiable affirmations. He expressed that this move misshapes the legitimate truths and amounts to a manhandle of legal strategies. Shankar emphasized that the High Court had already investigated the matter altogether some time recently ruling in his favour. In spite of this, the ED took activity based on a report from the Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), which negated the court's judgment.

The discussion stems from a case recorded in 2011 by Aroor Tamilanathan, who blamed Shankar for replicating his story Jiguba to create Robo. The FTII afterwards backed Tamilanathan's claims, citing similarities between the two stories. Taking after this, the ED affirmed that Shankar had violated Section 63 of the Copyright Act and affirmed that encouraging examinations were underway. Be that as it may, the director remains firm in his stance, keeping up that equity has as of now been served through the lawful framework, and any assist activity against him is unwarranted.