MP HC dismisses plea by Shah Bano's daughter seeking stay on release of film 'Haq'

Indore, Nov 6 (PTI) The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the daughter of Shah Bano Begum seeking to stop the release of Hindi film "Haq" inspired by her mother's famous legal battle, holding that a person's right to reputation or privacy is not heritable.

Such rights come to an end with a person's death, and the film-makers were not obliged to seek a consent from Shah Bano Begum's daughter, said the Indore bench of the high court, paving the way for the film's release on Friday.

"...it has been categorically laid down that right of privacy or reputation of a person comes to an end after his or her lifetime," said Justice Pranay Verma, who had reserved the order on November 4.

"Since Smt Shah Bano is no longer alive, her right of privacy and reputation has come to an end with her," said the judge, citing past judgements. The copy of the ruling became available on Thursday.

"It is not the case of the petitioner that the film has in any manner violated her own privacy or reputation in any manner. Thus, the contention that the film violates the right of privacy or reputation of Smt. Shah Bano is not acceptable. There was also no obligation on part of the respondents to take prior consent from the petitioner prior to producing and releasing the film," the judge further said.

"Haq", starring Yami Gautam Dhar and Emraan Hashmi in lead roles, has been inspired by the life and legal struggle of Shah Bano Begum, on whose petition the Supreme Court in 1985 passed a ruling granting divorced Muslim women the right to maintenance.

Bano, a resident of Indore, died in 1992. Her daughter, Siddiqua Begum Khan, had approached the high court claiming that the film was made without the family's consent, and has misrepresented personal aspects of her late mother's life.

Shah Bano had filed a lawsuit in a local court seeking maintenance from her husband Mohammad Ahmed Khan, a lawyer, after he divorced her in 1978. After a lengthy legal battle, the Supreme Court ruled in her favour in 1985. The five-judge Constitution bench held that Muslim women were entitled to maintenance under the law.

Following protests by Muslim organisations, the then-Rajiv Gandhi government at the Centre enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act in 1986, nullifying the SC decision.

In the present case, the petitioner claimed that the film would harm her mother's reputation. The commercialization of Shah Bano Begum's private life was legally not allowed, her lawyers argued.

The Central Board of Film Certification had on October 28 granted the film a UA 13+ certificate.

The personality and moral rights are inheritable and those of late Shah Bano Begum have been inherited by the petitioner, her daughter pleaded, alleging that the film was based on a false script, and the personal tragedy of an individual had been commodified.

The producers, in their response to Siddiqua Begum Khan's petition, argued that the personality, publicity and private rights are not heritable, and these right cease to exist with a person's death.

The storyline and characters of the film are fictional and fall squarely within the protection of artistic and creative freedom enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, they argued.

The high court also noted the producers' submission that the film will carry a disclaimer stating that it was a dramatized and fictionalized adaptation of the English book "Bano: Bharat ki Beti" written by Jigna Vora. It was inspired by the 1985 landmark judgment but was not a biopic of any person, as per the disclaimer. "Since the disclaimer itself states that the same is dramatization, and is fictional and an adaptation of a book and is inspired by a judgment of the Apex Court, it cannot be said that the contents of the film are fabricated. Since the film is an inspiration and a fiction, some amount of leeway is certainly permissible and merely because the same is done, it cannot be said that there has been any sensationalization or false portrayal," the judge added.

The HC also held that the petitioner approached the court very late, as the media had been carrying reports about the film's making since February 2024.

The respondents included the Union government, CBFC, and director Suparn S Varma along with three private companies associated with the movie. PTI HWP LAL NP KRK