MP High Court Dismisses Challenge to Release of Film ‘Haq’, Says Privacy Rights Do Not Survive Death

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the daughter of late Shah Bano Begum seeking to restrain the release of the film Haq, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any legal grounds to justify judicial interference with the film’s scheduled release.

The Court ruled that the right to privacy extinguishes upon a person’s death and that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had already examined and cleared the film for public exhibition.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Pranay Verma heard the matter and declined to entertain the petitioner’s objections, noting that the claims raised during arguments were unsupported by pleadings and that the petitioner had approached the Court at the last minute despite long-standing publicity surrounding the project.

The petition, filed on November 1, 2025, sought to halt the nationwide and global release of Haq scheduled for November 7, 2025.

The petitioner, who described herself as the sole surviving legal heir of late Shah Bano Begum, alleged that the film dramatized the personal and matrimonial life of her parents without consent and that such depiction amounted to violation of privacy, dignity and reputation. She asserted that the teaser released on September 23, 2025 and the trailer released on October 23, 2025 contained fabricated material based on unverified sources, and that reviving events relating to her mother’s past caused her severe distress.

The petitioner issued a legal notice dated October 6, 2025 to the producers seeking suspension of the film’s release, to which a reply was sent denying all allegations. She argued that the only authentic public record concerning her family was the 1985 Supreme Court judgment in Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, which contained legal findings but no personal details capable of dramatization.

The respondents, including the co-producers Insomnia Media & Content Services Ltd., contended that Haq was a fictional adaptation inspired by the landmark judgment and by the book Bano: Bharat ki Beti authored by Jigna Vora. They pointed out that the film’s storyline centres around a fictional character, “Shazia Bano”, and depicts her battle for justice in the 1980s. They further submitted that media outlets had reported on the film’s development since February 2024, with extensive public coverage on its progress and thematic inspiration, and that the petitioner had waited until just six days before the release to initiate legal proceedings despite knowing of the film’s existence.

The Court examined the plea and noted that while counsel for the petitioner argued that certain dialogues in the teaser and trailer allegedly maligned a particular religion or community, no such averments had been pleaded in the petition, nor had specific offending content been identified. Since oral arguments cannot substitute for missing pleadings, the Court refused to consider these allegations.

On the central issue of posthumous privacy, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which affirmed that the right to privacy is a natural right that extinguishes with the individual. Referring also to decisions such as Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay, the Court reiterated that privacy and reputation are not inheritable rights and end with a person’s death. As the petitioner did not allege any violation of her own privacy, the claim was found unsustainable. The Court held that the filmmakers were under no legal obligation to obtain consent from legal heirs when producing a fictional adaptation inspired by public record material.

The Court took note of the detailed disclaimer shown before the film, which states that the movie is a dramatized and fictionalized adaptation inspired by the 1985 Supreme Court judgment and the events surrounding it, clarifies that it is not a biopic, and asserts that any resemblance to real persons is coincidental. The Court held that once the filmmakers explicitly characterised the film as fiction and dramatization, the allegation of fabrication or sensationalisation could not be accepted.

The Court further emphasised that the CBFC had granted the film a UA 13+ certificate on October 28, 2025, creating a presumption of compliance with statutory guidelines. 

It held that the petitioner had an alternate remedy under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to approach the Central Government for suspension or revocation of the certificate, but had not done so. Since no fundamental rights violation was made out, the writ court’s intervention was unwarranted.

The Court also highlighted the petitioner’s delay and laches, observing that publicity surrounding the project existed for more than a year, yet the petitioner waited until immediately before release to file the petition.

Finding no merit in any of the grounds raised, the Court dismissed the petition.

Appearances: Shri Tousif Warsi, Advocate for the petitioner; Shri Romesh Dave, Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.1; Shri H.Y. Mehta, Advocate with Shri Chinmay Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.3.; Shri Ajay Bagadia, Senior Advocate along with Shri Ritik Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.5.

Insomnia Media & Content Services Ltd., one of the co-producers of the film, was represented by Adv. H.Y. Mehta ably assisted by the team at Parinam Law Associates comprising of Ms. Pooja Tidke (Jt. Managing Partner), Ms. Monisha Mane Bhangale (Partner), Mr. Chandrajit Das (Senior Associate) and Mr. Pavanaj R Hariharan.

Case Title: Siddiqua Begum Khan v. Union of India & Ors.

Judgment Date: 04.11.2025 

Bench: Justice Pranay Verma