Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Petition Against Release Of Film “Haq” Inspired By Shah Bano Case
The Court held that the film, having been certified by the CBFC and carrying a detailed disclaimer, could not be restrained from release, emphasising that the right to privacy of an individual extinguishes upon death and cannot be asserted by legal heirs.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed to restrain the release, screening and promotion of the film “Haq”, which draws inspiration from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in the Shah Bano case.
The Court held that the right to privacy ends with the death of a person, and therefore, the petitioner, daughter of late Shah Bano, could not claim a violation of posthumous privacy or reputation.
The Court was hearing a petition seeking a direction to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to withhold or revoke the certification granted to the film and to prevent its commercial release.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Pranay Verma, while rejecting the plea, observed that “since the movie has been granted certificate by the CBFC, there is prima facie presumption that the authority concerned has taken into account all the guidelines while issuing the certificate as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. and Others (Supra).”
Advocate Tousif Warsi appeared on behalf of the petitioner, while Romesh Dave, Deputy Solicitor General, represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioner contended that she is the daughter and surviving legal heir of the late Shah Bano Begum. According to her, the film “Haq” dramatises the personal and matrimonial life of her parents without consent and contains fabricated dialogues and sensationalised portrayals.
The teaser and trailer of the film were released in September and October 2025, prompting her to issue a legal notice before approaching the Court on November 1, 2025, just days before the planned theatrical release on November 7, 2025.
It was argued that the film misappropriates the legacy of the Shah Bano judgment, invades her mother’s dignity and privacy, and commercialises her tragedy for entertainment. She also alleged failure on the part of CBFC to discharge its statutory duty in issuing certification.
The film producers submitted that “Haq” is a dramatised, fictionalised adaptation inspired by the 1985 Supreme Court judgment and the book “Bano: Bharat ki Beti”. They argued that publicity and personality rights do not survive death, the film contains a full disclaimer stating that characters are fictitious, and all references are based on publicly available material.
They emphasised that the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act to seek suspension or revocation of certification, which she did not pursue. The respondents also noted that the teaser and media reports had been public for months, but the petitioner had delayed filing the petition.
Court’s Observation
The Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the petitioner’s primary allegation was ‘violation of the privacy and dignity’ of late Shah Bano. Relying on K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that “right to privacy of any individual… extinguishes with human being.” The Bench further referred to Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay, observing that privacy and reputation “cannot be inherited like movable or immovable property by legal heirs” and that “posthumous right is not an alienable right.” Since the film was not alleged to violate the petitioner’s own privacy, the claim was held untenable.
The Court took note of the detailed disclaimer preceding the film, which expressly states that the movie is a fictionalised adaptation inspired by public records, is not a biopic, and that any resemblance to real persons is unintentional. It was held that once material is a matter of public record, including court records, privacy no longer subsists, relying on R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu.
The Court also noted that the film has already been certified UA-13+ by the CBFC, holding that once certification is granted, there is a presumption of compliance with statutory guidelines and the petitioner should have approached the Central Government under Section 5-E rather than invoking writ jurisdiction directly. No procedural violation in the certification process was pleaded.
The Court also took note of an unexplained delay and lack of vigilance in filing the petition. News coverage, teasers and production details were public many months before the filing of the writ petition, yet the petitioner, the Bench noted, had waited until a week before release.
Conclusion
The Court held that the right of privacy of Shah Bano did not survive her death, that the petitioner failed to show a violation of her own rights, that certification had been duly issued by CBFC, and that the writ petition suffered from delay as well as the availability of an alternate statutory remedy.
Accordingly, finding no grounds to interfere, the Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Siddiqua Begum Khan v. Union of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-IND:32075)
Appearances
Petitioner: Tousif Warsi, Advocate
Respondents: Romesh Dave, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Senior Advocate Ajay Bagadia and Advocates H.Y. Mehta, Chinmay Mehta, and Ritik Gupta