Actor-director Darling Krishna has mounted a strong and detailed rebuttal to allegations of plagiarism surrounding Love Mocktail 3, as the controversy intensifies following claims by filmmaker Raghavendra Naik that he had narrated a similar story to Krishna a couple of years ago. According to Naik, the idea was shared around 2023 and later rejected, only for him to notice what he believes are similarities in the film’s narrative, particularly in its latter portions.
Krishna, however, has dismissed the accusation outright, calling it both baseless and insulting to the creative effort that went into making the film. The actor-filmmaker, who has now directed the third instalment of the same franchise, pointed out that Love Mocktail 3 is not only performing well at the box office but is also the result of nearly three years of writing and development. “If it was so easy, why would we spend years working on it?” he asked, adding that such claims undermine the integrity of the process.
“The claim itself is the biggest joke,” Krishna said, reacting sharply to suggestions that key characters and story arcs were borrowed. He maintained that he has always relied on his own writing and has never been in a position where he needed to lift someone else’s story. Emphasising his track record, he noted that he has stayed away from controversies throughout his career and prefers to focus solely on his work.
Expanding on how such disputes arise, Krishna explained that as a filmmaker, he listens to over a hundred story pitches every year, sometimes even more. “When we don’t accept a story, some people feel we failed to understand their idea. I’ve observed this—once rejected, people can turn very negative,” he said, adding that hearing too many scripts has, in fact, become a professional risk.
He also used a real-life analogy to underline his point about originality and overlapping ideas. Referring to a widely discussed incident from Lucknow about a Hindu man raising a Muslim child, Krishna said that such stories exist independently in real life. If someone were to later claim ownership over such a narrative, it would be unreasonable. Through this, he stressed that similar ideas can emerge organically, and merely narrating a broad concept earlier does not amount to authorship of a finished screenplay.
Drawing a parallel from cinema, Krishna added that claiming ownership after the fact is as absurd as someone asserting that Rishab Shetty’s Kantara was their story. “If I say that, I’ll only look like a fool,” he remarked, underscoring how such claims lack credibility.
Backing him firmly, Milana Nagaraj stated that the team is prepared to take the legal route. Krishna confirmed that he intends to fight the allegations in court, calling them a serious affront to both his reputation and the film’s integrity.
Reiterating his stance, Krishna added that if he ever had to depend on someone else’s story, he would rather stop making films altogether. And in a final, pointed remark, he said, “If I had to copy, I’d copy a winning story—like how a rank student copies another rank student,” making it clear that, in his view, the accusations hold no merit.