The daughter of Shah Bano Begum, whose 1980s legal battle led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling granting maintenance rights to divorced Muslim women, has approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to stop the release of the upcoming film Haq.
The film, starring Emraan Hashmi and Yami Gautam, is scheduled for release on November 7. In her plea (Siddiqua Begum Khan vs Union of India), Shah Bano’s daughter Siddiqua Begum Khan argued that the movie was made without consent from her mother’s legal heirs and portrays private family matters without authorization.
Allegations of Distortion and Privacy Violation
Siddiqua contended that the teasers and trailers of Haq present a distorted and fictionalized version of real events, misrepresenting the personalities and private lives of those involved. The petition claims that the film “commercially exploits the privacy and personality of Shah Bano Begum” and that it would cause “permanent emotional and reputational damage” to her family.
Her counsel further argued that the portrayal of her mother’s personal struggles as cinematic entertainment violates the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which prohibits certification of films that defame or invade privacy. The plea also asserts that Siddiqua has inherited her mother’s moral and personality rights, which would be infringed by the film’s release.
Filmmakers Defend the Film as Fictional
During the hearing before Justice Pranay Verma at the Indore Bench, the producers, including Junglee Pictures, claimed that Haq is a fictional adaptation inspired by public events and includes a standard disclaimer stating it is not a biopic.
When the judge asked if the film clearly identifies itself as fictional, the producers’ counsel confirmed that the disclaimer precedes the film. The Court then directed the filmmakers to place the disclaimer on record and listed the matter for further hearing.
Petition Seeks Stay on Film and Revocation of CBFC Certificate
Siddiqua’s petition seeks an order restraining the filmmakers from releasing, screening, promoting, or publishing Haq. She also urged the Court to direct the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to revoke the censor certificate until her family’s consent is obtained.
Her counsel claimed that the CBFC had failed in its statutory duty by certifying the film without verifying consent from Shah Bano’s heirs. The CBFC, represented by its counsel, maintained that since the film was certified as fictional, no such permission was necessary.
Court Observations
The Court observed that the Shah Bano case and its associated legal proceedings are already matters of public record due to the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment. However, Siddiqua’s counsel emphasized that her objection is not to the portrayal of the court case but to the personal depiction of her mother’s life, which, he argued, was dramatized beyond the judicial narrative.
In response, the judge remarked, “If she has struggled, would it not be a credit for her, not derogation? A person fighting for her rights — it could be interpreted that way also.”
Siddiqua’s lawyer replied that only Shah Bano’s family could ensure a fair and respectful portrayal of her real experiences, and the filmmakers should have sought consent before proceeding.
Representation
- For the Petitioner: Advocate Tousif Warsi
- For the Union of India: Deputy Solicitor General Romesh Dave
- For Insomnia Films: Advocates HY Mehta, Chinmay Mehta, and Chandrajit Das (briefed by Parinaam Law Associates)
- For Junglee Pictures: Senior Advocate Ajay Bagadia with advocates Ritik Gupta and Jasmeet Kaur (briefed by Anand Naik & Co.)
The matter will be heard further on Tuesday, with the Court set to review the disclaimer and arguments from all parties.
Disclaimer: This content has been produced and published by Local Law Media Network for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. The views and opinions expressed are independent and do not reflect the position of any legal practice or organization associated with the individuals mentioned.
