A Harry Potter star has come out in apparent support for JK Rowling, after one of her co-stars labelled the author a ‘bigot’ for her stance on trans issues.
In seeming defiance to her co-stars, Potter child star Afshan Azad has continued to thank Rowling publicly for creating the fictional universe that launched her career – saying that she owes the writer ‘everything’.
Azad, 37, played Padma Patil in five films starting with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire – and continues to meet wizarding fans to this day, for which she still expresses gratitude.
But her co-stars are less keen to be associated with Rowling while she continues to express divisive views on transgender rights.
Rowling – who also writes under the male pen name of Robert Galbraith – has been celebrating after the Supreme Court ruled that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex when interpreting the Equality Act.
She shared an image of herself puffing on a cigar on board her superyacht, captioned ‘I love it when a plan comes together’ after The A-Team character Hannibal, following the ruling, which has sparked protests across the country.
Following the post, Harry Potter star Sean Biggerstaff, who portrayed Quidditch captain Oliver Wood in three films, took to social media to label Rowling a ‘bigot’.
Other stars including Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have previously voiced support for trans people and publicly dissented against Rowling’s views.
Though not mentioning the recent storm, Azad took to Instagram in the days following Rowling’s comments on the ruling to share a tribute to the wizarding franchise.
She posted a photograph of herself smiling alongside a poster of herself as Patil as she attended German Potter Con at Arenfels Castle in Neuwied.
Harry Potter star Afshan Azad has shown her support for the franchise amid its other stars speaking out in opposition of JK Rowling, sharing a photograph of herself at a convention
Harry Potter author Rowling, 59, has made headlines for her radical views – and puffed on a cigar on board her superyacht as she celebrated the Supreme Court judgment on the definition of a woman under the Equality Act
Amid the ongoing row, the Padma Patil star (pictured in the Goblet of Fire) remained silent on the controversy but shared a post about how ‘lucky’ she feels to be involved with Harry Potter
Remaining silent on the Supreme Court ruling, she gushed over how ‘lucky’ she is to still be involved with the wizarding franchise 24 years after the first movie hit screens.
She said in a caption: ‘I was once in a film you may have watched.. how lucky are we that we still get to travel to meet our incredible fans!’
Mother of two Azad is active on Instagram, sharing images of her life with husband Nabil Kazi, whom she married in 2018, and their two daughters.
She is not afraid to comment on political issues, using a May 2024 post to accuse Israel of ‘the worst genocide in all of history’ amidst its campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
She has not, however, commented directly on the Supreme Court case.
MailOnline has contacted Azad for comment.
Co-stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson, have all criticised Rowling’s views on gender in the past. They have not commented on the ruling.
Radcliffe said last year that Rowling’s crusade to protect the rights of biological women had left him ‘really sad’ – but that he did not have to continue owing his success to her.
In comments to the Atlantic last year, made after the Cass found that decisions on gender medicine were based on ‘shaky foundations’, he said that her role as Potter’s creator ‘doesn’t mean that you owe the things you truly believe to someone else for your entire life’.
In a statement made in 2020, as Rowling’s comments on trans people became a greater matter of public discourse, Radcliffe said: ‘Transgender women are women.
‘Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.’
Azad starred as Padma Patil in five of the Harry Potter films, starting with 2005’s Goblet of Fire, with Shefali Chowdhury playing her twin sister Parvati Patil.
The Manchester-born star also appeared in 2007’s Order of the Phoenix, 2009’s The Half-Blood Prince and both of the final films, The Deathly Hallows’ Parts 1 and 2.
The actress has previously thanked Rowling for launching her career after other Harry Potter child stars have distanced themselves from the embattled author.
Azad (second left) starred as Padma in five of the Harry Potter films, starting with 2005’s Goblet of Fire, with Shefali Chowdhury playing her twin sister Parvati Patil (far left)
For Women Scotland’s Susan Smith (left) and Marion Calder (front, right) celebrate following the Supreme Court ruling. Judges said the ruling was not to be interpreted as a triumph for any one side
The ruling sparked widespread protests across Britain last weekend (pictured: a protester holds a sign reading ‘leave trans people alone’ in Edinburgh on Saturday)
Back in 2021, Azad, took to X – formerly known as Twitter – to say she ‘owes everything’ to Rowling and Harry Potter’s casting directors.
‘When the Philosophers Stone film came out I was sucked into the magical world like every other kid,’ she penned at the time.
‘Little did I know years later I’d audition for a role that would change my entire life upside down. I owe everything to JK Rowling, the casting agents and the Potter films.’
Rowling has faced much backlash from the Harry Potter child stars over her views and has been branded a ‘bigot’ after the latest Supreme Court ruling.
In 2018, her spokesperson claimed that the author had accidentally liked a tweet describing trans women as ‘men in dresses’, calling it a ‘middle-aged moment’.
‘This is not the first time she has favourited (a tweet) by holding her phone incorrectly,’ the spokesperson said.
But since then Rowling has seemingly made it her mission to speak up for women’s sex-based rights, regularly sharing opinions with her 14.3million followers.
Some of her tweets have also focused on biological women, including boxer Imane Khelif and footballer Barbra Banda.
Oliver Wood actor Biggerstaff condemned Rowling’s post about the Supreme Court ruling, in which she raised her glass and smoked a cigar on her $150million superyacht in celebration.
After the picture prompted accusations she was ‘smoking a blunt’, she hit back on social media, clarifying that it was ‘objectively, provably and demonstratively a cigar’.
Responding to her post, Biggerstaff claimed the billionaire writer had no sense of humour about the comments, writing: ‘Bigotry rots the wit.’
He also backed one person who compared her to Andrew Tate for puffing on a cigar, much like the self-proclaimed misogynist does in his own videos, which many argue stir violence against women.
It comes after Harry Potter’s Sean Biggerstaff (pictured at a convention in February) – who portrayed Oliver Wood in three movies – passionately condemned Rowling after the ruling
The tweet read: ‘lol, huffing on a cigar now? Is she Andrew Tate?’ with Biggerstaff simply re-posting the words to his own profile.
Rowling had shared a picture of Susan Smith and Marion Calder, co-directors of For Women Scotland, celebrating the ruling and told people not to ‘f**k with Scottish women’.
However, Scotsman Biggerstaff replied: ‘The majority of Scottish women, who don’t agree with these d***heads, aren’t being bankrolled by an obsessed billionaire,’ referencing reports that Rowling helped fund the case.
He also showed solidarity with the leading Harry Potter trio as he slammed one user who referred to Radcliffe, Watson and Grint as ‘disloyal bags of s***’ for speaking out against Rowling, asking how they are doing today.
In response, an unimpressed Biggerstaff said: ‘You don’t have to wonder. You know what they’re doing – leading happy and successful lives, having not driven their families away with their hateful obsessions.’
Biggerstaff additionally rubbished accusations that Rowling – who is currently having her Harry Potter books adapted into a new TV series – was ‘cast out’ and ‘smeared’ for her views.
Responding to one post, Biggerstaff quipped: ‘Christ, if that’s what being cast out looks like I’ll take some,’ referring to her net worth of approximately £1billion.
Biggerstaff shared further general posts defending the transgender community as he shared his opposition to the Supreme Court ruling, arguing that the ‘loudest voices’ were ‘using concern for sex-based rights as cover for entirely reactionary politics’.
Meanwhile, leading Harry Potter stars Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have so far remained silent after speaking out against Rowling in the past (all pictured in May 2004)
‘Today is just a torrent of people being willfully simple-minded. A performance of pragmatism to cloak their instinctive distaste for the Other,’ he added in another post.
Biggerstaff starred in first two Harry Potter movies – The Philosopher’s Stone and the Chamber of Secrets – and returned for a brief, uncredited cameo in the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.
Though forthrightly speaking out against Rowling herself, Biggerstaff remains involved with the wider Harry Potter universe and often attends fan conventions.
He most recently appeared at a signing at the Gibert-Joseph bookstore in France in February 2025 and attended another meet and greet in Italy in December 2024.
Biggerstaff additionally appeared at the New England WizardFest & Magic Convention in Boxborough in August 2023.
The Supreme Court case saw judges rule that trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if ‘proportionate’.
It marked the culmination of a long-running legal battle between the Scottish government and women’s group For Women Scotland over the definition of a ‘woman’ in Scottish law.
The case centred on whether somebody with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising their gender as female should be protected from discrimination as a woman under the Equality Act.
In his diatribe against Rowling, Biggerstaff responded to her controversial post about the Supreme Court ruling, in which she raised her glass and smoked a cigar on her superyacht
He also showed solidarity with the leading Harry Potter trio as he slammed one user who referred to Radcliffe, Watson and Grint as ‘disloyal bags of s**t’ for speaking out
Biggerstaff additionally rubbished accusations that billionaire Rowling – who is currently having her Harry Potter books adapted into a new TV series – was ‘cast out’ for her views
The Scottish government had argued that such people were entitled to sex-based protections, meaning a transgender person with a GRC certificate identifying them as female would count towards women’s quota.
But campaign group For Women Scotland claimed they only applied to people born female.
The Supreme Court ruled that the words ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ in the Equality Act must mean ‘biological sex’, rejecting any alternative interpretations as ‘incoherent and impracticable’.
Judge Lord Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, and stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people.
Rowling reacted last Wednesday by posting on X: ‘It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK. @ForWomenScot, I’m so proud to know you.’
She later added: ‘Trans people have lost zero rights today, although I don’t doubt some (not all) will be furious that the Supreme Court upheld women’s sex-based rights.’
Amid Rowling’s divisive celebrations, leading Harry Potter stars Radcliffe, Watson and Grint have so far remained silent after speaking out against her in the past.
They have previously spoken publicly in support of gender ideology – that biologically male trans women should be regarded as women – which Rowling disagrees with.
The author herself appeared to aim a jibe at them last month, when sharing on her X account a response to another user who asked: ‘What actor/actress instantly ruins a movie for you?’
Biggerstaff appeared in the first two Harry Potter movies – The Philosopher’s Stone and the Chamber of Secrets – and returned for a brief, uncredited cameo in the Deathly Hallows: Part 2
Rowling wrote: ‘Three guesses. Sorry, but that was irresistible.’
She previously indicated in April last year she would not forgive Radcliffe nor Watson as she criticised celebrities she said had ‘cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women’s hard-won rights’.
She hit out at stars accused of using their ‘platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors’ after the release of the long-awaited Cass report into gender treatment in the UK.
That government-commissioned study deemed there to be ‘remarkably weak evidence’ for gender-affirming techniques in children such as puberty blockers.
When one fan said they were ‘just waiting for Dan and Emma [Watson]’ to offer a ‘very public apology’ knowing they’d be safe in the knowledge the author would forgive them, Rowling wrote: ‘Not safe I’m afraid.
‘Celebs who cosied up to a movement intent on eroding women’s hard-won rights and who used their platforms to cheer on the transitioning of minors can save their apologies for traumatised detransitioners and vulnerable women reliant on single sex spaces.’
What does the Supreme Court gender ruling mean?
What did the Supreme Court rule?
The Supreme Court ruled the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.
What does it mean for single sex spaces?
The court’s decision will have huge consequences for how single-sex spaces and services operate across the UK, experts say.
The written Supreme Court judgment gives examples including rape or domestic violence counselling, refuges, rape crisis centres, female-only hospital wards and changing rooms.
The court ruled that trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) can be excluded from single-sex spaces if ‘proportionate’.
The government said the ruling ‘brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs’.
What does it mean for employers?
Employment experts say it will provide companies with greater ‘clarity’ over single sex spaces for their staff.
Lara Brown, senior Research Fellow in the Culture and Identity Unit at Policy Exchange, said a trans woman with a GRC who is excluded from single-sex spaces cannot say she is being discriminated against as a woman.
She explained: ‘This ruling makes it legal for any space that wants to be single sex to exclude biological men.’
Could employers still be at risk of discrimination?
The Supreme Court made it clear that trans people are protected under the gender reassignment provisions in the Equality Act and will be able to bring claims if they are discriminated or harassed.
Experts say a trans woman will be able to bring a sex discrimination claim if they are disadvantaged because they are perceived to be a woman or because they associate with a woman.
Rob McKellar, legal services director at Peninsula, said failure to be an inclusive workplace, regardless of any protected characteristics, could result in a discrimination claim.
What does the ruling mean for competitive sports?
In recent years, many sports have cracked down on rules around transgender athletes at the elite level.
Athletics, cycling and aquatics are among those who have banned trans women from taking part in women’s events.
The UK government said it hopes the decision will provide clarity for sports clubs.
Although the ruling did not concern sport directly, former Olympian Sharron Davies welcomed the decision, saying it was important to ‘define what a woman is’.
Could a pregnant woman with a GRC be entitled to maternity leave?
Experts say that the ruling that only women can become pregnant shows a trans man (biological woman) would be able to take maternity leave, while a trans woman (biological man) would not.
Jo Moseley, an employment law specialist at national law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: ‘The Supreme Court acknowledged that only women can become pregnant. Therefore a trans man (a biological woman who identifies as a man) can take maternity leave.
‘Had the court reached a different decision, it’s possible that trans men with a GRC wouldn’t have been entitled to protection in relation to pregnancy under the characteristics of ‘pregnancy or maternity’.’