'Haq' Film Affects Shah Bano's Personality Rights, Should Not Be Released: Daughter Tells MP High Court, Verdict Reserved

Shah Bano's daughter told the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (November 4) that the movie 'Haq' starring Yami Gautam Dhar and Emraan Hashmi affects the personality rights of her mother, depicts her image in a derogatory manner and must not be released. 

After hearing all the parties–including the producers and the Censor board, Justice Pranay Verma reserved his verdict in the matter. 

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.

The petition has been filed by Shah Bano's daughter- Siddiqua Begum Khan. It is her case that producers of the film did not take permission before using her mother's identity.

At the outset, the court was informed today that a disclaimer has been filed which reads:

“this film is dramatized and fictionalized adaptation of English book titled Bharat ki Beti by Jigna Vora and is inspired by the 1985 landmark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammed Ahmad Khan v/s Shah Bano Begum and events leading up to it.The film does not claim to be a biopic or documentary of any person and does not make any claim of authenticity, historical correctness, accuracy in relation to any person characters statutory authorities, events incidents information or circumstances quoted…any similarities or resemblance of characters,  incidents…is entirely purely coincidental and unintentional…"

Advocate Tousif Warsi, appearing for the daughter Siddiqua Begum Khan said that Shah Bano's identity was used in the movie and that the producers were taking a stand that source of movie is the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in 1985 as well as a book titled “Bharat ki Beti” by Jigna Vora.

It was submitted that the content of the teaser and trailer were derogatory in nature, and were affecting right of privacy of Shah Bano. The counsel also averred that the depiction of the character in the movie was different from the book.

“The trailer delivers way of delivering Talaq by throwing money at face of the Shah Bano…in teaser it says 'agar tum wafadar biwi hoti toh aisi baat nahi karti'…..So far as likeness is concerned Shah Bano's character is Shazia Bano…..If basis is book then that should have been basis of the movie,” the counsel said.

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling recognising the right to privacy, the counsel averred that the producer says that inspiration of the movie is the book and judgment, but neither of those reflect in the dialogues used in the trailer. The dialogues used are very defamatory and derogatory, he added.

Furthermore, it was submitted that the producers cannot disown responsibility of harming, by use of the dialogues in the film, the identity of Shah Bano Begum. 

“The right of privacy is applicable to present petitioner as Puttaswamy judgment. It becomes their (producer) responsibility to demonstrate identity in proper manner. Merely changing names of characters wont do. There is a restriction under Art 19(2) they cannot harm my reputation, my family's reputation,” he said.

It was urged that the film may not be permitted to be released for the reason that it affects Shah Bano's personality rights. 

Film is Dramatized and Fictionalized adaption

Meanwhile the senior counsel appearing for producer Junglee Pictures submitted that the film is dramatized and fictionalized adaption of the book and the judgment. He said that the use of the terms dramatized and fictionalized mean that there is certain kind of artistic license which has been used. It is inspired by judgment, he added. 

Referring to the disclaimer he said that movie is not a biopic nor does it claim to be one. He said that film portrayed Shah Bano in the correct light as a source of "inspiration" for all other women. 

On issue of infringement of privacy he said, "Does any right of violation of publicity, privacy continue or does it extinguish after Shah Bano's death?"

He further said that petitioner had alternative remedy wherein petitioner, if she is not satisfied with the grant of certificate by the CBFC, can approach the Central Government under the Cinematograph Act under Section 6, instead of rushing to the court. 

Another counsel appearing for one of the other producers said that the certificate issued by the CBFC was not placed before the court.

He referred to Section 5 of the Cinematography Act, which deals with grant of certificate, and said that any restraint on the film cannot be granted, unless and until the certification is set aside. 

“If you see allegations in petition, there are no categorical statements that what we have said is wrong and what we have said is right…. No prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of petitioner,” he said.

Doubt raised have been considered already

The counsel representing CBFC said that the petitioner was seeking direction to CBFC to withhold certification of film pending verification of consent from the legal heirs. He said that there was no legal requirement of CBFC to do this. 

On withholding of certificate the counsel said that the Central Government can suspend a certificate after it has been granted if it is satisfied. He said that the power is with the Central government. 

He said that before granting certification to the film, the 5 member committee of the CBFC considered all the aspects and observed that no other recommendation was required. 

He said that the contention raised by the petitioner on dialogues in the movie was considered by the Committee which gave no recommendation to censor the same.

“Every doubt raised has been considered by members and thereafter certification was given. Process as per law was followed,” he said.

In rejoinder, the petitioner counsel said that soon as the teaser was released, a legal notice was served to the producers and CBFC. It is not open for 3rd person to decide what dialogue is defamatory. The family of the person can say what is defamatory, he said.

On Monday the petitioner's counsel had contended that the movie depicts the personal life of her mother without obtaining the due permission from the biological daughters of Shah Bano Begum. 

However, the movie's producer Junglee Movies had contended that the movie is preceded by a Disclaimer and the movie is based on a book 'Bharat Ki Beti' and Supreme Court judgment. The court had then asked the producer to bring the Disclaimer on record. 

Case title: Ms Siddiqua Begum Khan v Union of India and Others [WP 42708/2025]