Less than a year after making history by electing its first woman president, the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) finds itself mired in one of the most stormy crises in its three-decade existence.
What began as questions over financial records at the organisation's annual general body meeting on June 21 has since snowballed into a full-blown power struggle involving resignations, court intervention, allegations of financial irregularities, accusations of communal polarisation, leaked conversations, rival claims over leadership and deepening factional divides within Malayalam cinema's most influential actors' body.
At the centre of the storm is actor Shwetha Menon, whose election in August 2025 was hailed as a watershed moment for AMMA in the aftermath of the Hema Committee report. Less than eleven months later, the administration she led has collapsed, only for her to insist that it remains the only legitimate governing body of the organisation.
Here's a look at how the crisis unfolded and where things stand now.
The latest twist: Shwetha says she is still president
The most dramatic development came in early July when Shwetha Menon, who had publicly announced her resignation during AMMA's annual general body meeting on June 21, declared that she continues to be the organisation's legitimate president. According to Shwetha, the resolution that effectively led to the collapse of her executive committee did not satisfy the requirements laid down in AMMA's bylaws. She has argued that the resolution seeking the committee's removal never received the mandatory support required under the association's rules and therefore lacks legal validity.
Following the collapse of the executive committee, AMMA constituted an ad hoc committee headed by actor-director-politician MLA Ramesh Pisharody to oversee the organisation's affairs until fresh elections are held. The committee was entrusted with managing the association's day-to-day functioning in the interim.
Shwetha has also questioned the very existence of the ad hoc committee, claiming there is no provision for such a body in AMMA's bylaws. In her view, an elected committee must continue until fresh elections are conducted and a new committee assumes charge. Taking the battle to court, Shwetha secured temporary relief from the Ernakulam Munsiff Court, which restrained the ad hoc committee from functioning until further hearings. The legal intervention has effectively frozen AMMA in an unprecedented situation, with competing interpretations of who is legally entitled to run the organisation.
Shwetha has further claimed that both Mammootty and Mohanlal encouraged her not to resign and urged her to continue fighting.
A historic victory that promised change
To understand the significance of the current crisis, it is important to revisit the circumstances that brought Shwetha to power. The 2025 election came against the backdrop of the Hema Committee report and the resignation of the executive committee led by Mohanlal in 2024. AMMA had come under intense scrutiny over women's representation, accountability and its response to issues raised by women in the industry.
Shwetha became the first woman president in AMMA's history. Kukku Parameswaran became general secretary, Lakshmi Priya vice-president and Ansiba Hassan joint secretary, giving women unprecedented representation in the organisation's leadership. The election was widely seen as a fresh start for an organisation struggling to rebuild its credibility. However, the goodwill generated by that historic victory gradually gave way to a series of controversies, internal disagreements and public disputes that would eventually engulf the administration.
The first signs of trouble
The first visible cracks appeared months before the June showdown. In February, Ansiba Hassan resigned as joint secretary, citing differences with certain members of the executive committee. The dispute escalated in May when the Drishyam 3 actor filed a complaint against fellow executive committee member Tini Tom and publicly criticised the leadership's handling of the issue. Vice-president Lakshmi Priya subsequently became embroiled in the controversy, with Ansiba accusing her of failing to address her concerns and of taking sides in the dispute. What began as an internal disagreement soon acquired a communal dimension, with Ansiba and her supporters alleging that attempts were being made to portray her through a religious lens and isolate her within the organisation.
The committee also faced criticism over its handling of internal complaints, administrative issues and the dismissal of an office employee, which later led to allegations of workplace harassment and renewed questions about transparency.
The June 21 meeting that changed everything
The breaking point arrived during the annual general body meeting held on June 21 at Chittilappilly Square in Kakkanad. What was expected to be a routine annual meeting quickly turned into a marathon confrontation. Several members questioned the annual report and statement of accounts presented by general secretary Kukku Parameswaran. Senior actors including Siddique, Baburaj, Idavela Babu and Renji Panicker reportedly sought greater clarity regarding expenditure, documentation and accounting procedures.
What began as a debate over finances soon expanded into a broader criticism of the executive committee's functioning. Members reportedly raised concerns about administrative lapses, delays in circulating important documents and the growing tendency to address internal disputes through the media rather than within the organisation.
Faced with mounting criticism, Shwetha announced her resignation as president. Soon afterwards, the rest of the executive committee followed suit. At the time, many believed the chapter had closed, but instead, it marked the beginning of a far bigger confrontation.
The Rs 67 lakh controversy
Although the crisis has evolved beyond financial questions, money remains at the centre of the dispute. One of the major issues raised during the general body meeting concerned expenditure linked to AMMA's annual family gathering and other organisational activities. Baburaj emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the administration, alleging that expenditure amounting to around ₹67 lakh had not been properly accounted for. Questions were also raised regarding the documentation supporting certain expenses and whether the accounts presented to members provided adequate clarity.
These concerns became one of the principal reasons behind the loss of confidence in the executive committee. Shwetha, however, has consistently maintained that many of the issues originated before her administration took charge. She argues that her committee inherited unresolved problems from previous administrations and attempted to streamline the organisation's functioning after assuming office.
More recently, she escalated her allegations by claiming that she uncovered irregularities involving welfare funds intended for financially struggling members and that resistance to her leadership intensified after she began asking questions about those transactions.
The emergence of two rival narratives
In the days following the resignations, two entirely different versions of events emerged. According to critics of the outgoing leadership, the executive committee lost the confidence of the general body after failing to satisfactorily explain financial and administrative issues. From their perspective, the resignations represented the inevitable consequence of an administration that had failed to deliver on its promises.
Shwetha and her supporters, however, argue that a small but influential group arrived at the meeting with a pre-planned agenda aimed at forcing the committee out. According to them, the entire process was orchestrated and did not comply with the association's rules.
Why has the row become so personal?
The dispute is no longer confined to accounting procedures and bylaws. In the weeks following the resignations, the controversy transformed into an increasingly public war of words involving press conferences, Facebook posts, leaked audio conversations and competing allegations.
Shwetha has repeatedly referred to the existence of a "power group" operating within Malayalam cinema and AMMA. Without naming individuals, she has suggested that influential figures have been attempting to regain control of the organisation and silence those who challenge them. Her critics reject this characterisation and argue that the issue is fundamentally about accountability rather than hidden power centres.
The women-versus-women dimension
Ansiba Hassan's resignation and the increasingly public disagreements among women members have complicated attempts to frame the controversy as a simple battle between reformers and the old guard.
The dispute took a more political turn in recent days when some of Shwetha's critics accused her of allowing communal and ideological divisions to creep into the organisation. Mala Parvathy, Usha Haseena and others alleged that efforts were made within AMMA to brand dissenters through a communal lens and claimed that sections of the leadership were sympathetic to BJP or Hindutva-aligned people. Shwetha has strongly denied these allegations, insisting that attempts to portray the crisis through a political or communal prism are baseless.
Where do superstars Mammootty and Mohanlal fit into all this?
Although neither superstar has directly participated in the ongoing exchanges, both continue to loom large over the discussion. Mohanlal's resignation in 2024 paved the way for the election that brought Shwetha to power. During the June general body meeting, he reportedly urged members not to allow personal differences to destroy the organisation and insisted that AMMA would survive the current crisis.
More recently, Shwetha claimed that both Mohanlal and Mammootty had encouraged her to stand firm and continue her fight. Neither actor has publicly commented on the latest round of allegations and counter-allegations, apart from expressing hope that the dispute would be resolved soon.
What happens next?
The future of AMMA now depends on both legal and organisational developments. The court will continue hearing Shwetha's challenge against the ad hoc committee and determine whether its formation was consistent with the association's bylaws. At the same time, members are awaiting clarity on the administrative structure of the organisation and the timeline for fresh elections.
What is clear is that the controversy has moved far beyond a disagreement over financial statements, and it has become a battle over authority and the future direction of Malayalam cinema's most influential actors' organisation.
For an association that hoped its first women-led administration would usher in a new era after the Hema Committee fallout, the current turmoil represents a deeply ironic outcome. Instead of delivering the stability and reform many anticipated, Shwetha's historic presidency has become the focal point of one of AMMA's ugliest power struggles.
