+91 964 334 1948
06 Nov 2025, 08:20 AM
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed Shah Bano's daughter's plea against release of Haq movie, observing that as per the disclaimer the film is fictional, adaptation of a book 'Bano: Bharat Ki Beti' and inspired by the 1985 landmark Supreme Court judgment hence some amount of leeway is permissible.
The court said that the same does not amount to false portrayal of the petitioner's mother and the movie does not claim to be a true story of any person.
The court noted that the film is not claimed to be based "purely upon" the Supreme Court's judgment in Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) and if it contains any personal details used for dramatization then the same was not wrong.
Justice Pranay Verma in his order observed:
The court further said:
The movie is set to release on November 7 and is reportedly inspired by the landmark decision in Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) wherein the Supreme Court applied Section 125 CrPC and ruled that maintenance be given to Shah Bano, a Muslim woman, even after divorce.
Film based on public record, no right of privacy persists
The high court further noted that as per the producers of the movie, the film is inspired by the life of Shah Bano and the 1985 judgment.
The court noted that the material from which the film draws inspiration are all available in the "public record", have been published, republished and recounted for decades without any objection from Shah Bano.
It noted, "The film is apparently based on public records including Court records hence it cannot be said that the script/dialogues have not been drawn from any legitimate or judicial source. In R. Rajagopal (Supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that any publication becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records, including Court records. Once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right of privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by the Press and Media amongst others. The same is precisely the fact situation in the present case".
Shah Bano's right to privacy has come to an end
The court referred to Supreme Court's decision in K.S. Puttaswamy as well as Madras High Court's decision in Deepa Jaya Kumar Vs. A.L. Vijay and Others (2021) where it was held that privacy or reputation earned by a person during his or her lifetime extinguishes with his or her death and can't be inherited
The court said that since Shah Bano is no longer alive, her right of privacy and reputation has come to an end with her and it was not the petitioner's case 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 court said.
Petitioner did not avail alternate remedy
The court also noted that the film has been granted a UA 13+ Certificate by Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on August 28.
The court noted that against this grant of such certificate, the petitioner has an "alternate remedy" available under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act of approaching the Central Government for suspension and/or revocation of the certificate which has not been availed of by her.
"Instead, directly in this petition, prayer has been made for withholding or revoking the certification of the film. In the available facts of the case the petitioner ought to have availed the said alternate remedy instead of straightaway approaching this Court," the court said.
Petitioner's conduct not of vigilant litigant
The court also noted that in February, 2024, news articles were published on national, international and digital news media outlets with respect to the working of the script for a film connected to the Shah Bano case. Thereafter, multiple news articles announced the commencement of shooting of the film. The publications stated that the film is based on real life incidents and inspired by the Shah Bano case, the court noted. The teaser of the film was released on 23.09.2025.
"Thereafter, instead of taking any legal action, the petitioner on 06.10.2025 issued a legal notice to the respondents, reply to which was submitted by them on 13.10.2025. The film was then slated to be released on 07.11.2025. However, the petitioner did not act immediately but preferred this petition on 01.11.2025 i.e. less than a week prior to release of the film and that too after grant of the Certificate. After release of the teaser no steps were taken by the petitioner in respect of grant of Certificate for the film. At least a month ago, cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court had accrued but she waited for a considerable period of time for preferring this petition. Her conduct is hence not that of a vigilant litigant. The petition hence also suffers from delay and latches," the court said.
The court dismissed the petition.
Case title: MS. SIDDIQUA BEGUM KHAN v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
WRIT PETITION No. 42708 of 2025
Counsel for petitioner: Advocate Tousif Warsi
Counsel for UoI: Deputy Solicitor General Romesh Dave
Counsel for R3: Advocates H.Y. Mehta and Chinmay Mehta
Counsel for R5: Senior advocate Ajay Bagadia and advocate Ritik Gupta