Posthumous Privacy and Cinematic Freedom
Factual Background:The case arises out of a legal challenge filed by Ms. Siddiqua Begum Khan, the daughter and surviving legal heir of the late Smt. Shah Bano Begum. The petitioner sought to restrain the release, promotion, and exhibition of a Hindi feature film titled “Haq”, which was scheduled for release on 7th November 2025. The film claimed to be inspired by the historical Shah Bano case — Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556 — a landmark Supreme Court decision that became a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional and personal law discourse.
According to the petitioner, the film was a dramatized portrayal of the personal and matrimonial life of her deceased mother, Shah Bano Begum, without her knowledge or consent. The teaser and trailer, released on 23rd September and 23rd October 2025 respectively, allegedly sensationalized her mother’s personal experiences, depicting them inaccurately and exploiting her image for commercial purposes. The petitioner issued a legal notice on 6th October 2025 calling upon the producers to halt release, but the respondents refused, replying on 14th October 2025 that the film was fictional. This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial intervention.
Procedural History:The writ petition was heard by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench. The petitioner was represented by Advocate Shri Tousif Warsi. Respondent No. 1, the Union of India, was represented by the Deputy Solicitor General, Shri Romesh Dave. Respondent No. 3, one of the producers, was represented by Shri H.Y. Mehta with Shri Chinmay Mehta. Senior Advocate Shri Ajay Bagadia appeared for Respondent No. 5, another production entity involved in the film.
The matter was heard finally with the consent of the parties, considering the film’s imminent release. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had already granted a UA 13+ certificate on 28th October 2025.
Core Dispute:The primary dispute centered on whether the film “Haq”, inspired by the Shah Bano case, violated the right to privacy, dignity, and reputation of the deceased Shah Bano Begum and whether her legal heir — the petitioner — could claim to have inherited such posthumous rights. The petitioner contended that dramatizing private aspects of her late mother’s life amounted to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the CBFC had failed to discharge its statutory duties by certifying the film without ensuring consent from legal heirs.
The respondents, on the other hand, defended the film as a fictional and dramatized adaptation of the English book “Bano: Bharat ki Beti” by journalist Jigna Vora, inspired by the spirit of the Shah Bano judgment, not its factual accuracy. They argued that personality rights and privacy cease upon a person’s death and that freedom of artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protected their work.
Arguments of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that releasing the film without her consent infringed her mother’s right to privacy, dignity, and reputation, protected under Article 21. She relied on several precedents to assert that unauthorized portrayal of private life constituted a legal wrong. They relied on the following Judgements: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 – recognizing privacy as a facet of the right to life,R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632 – on limits of media publication of private life,Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi (2002) 4 SCC 30 – balancing free speech with individual reputation,Phoolan Devi v. Shekhar Kapoor 1994 SCC OnLine Del 788 – where depiction of a living person’s life in film required consent,Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) 50 PTC 486 (Del) – concerning personality and publicity rights, The petitioner emphasized that her late mother’s life, although connected to a public judgment, remained largely private and not intended for commercial dramatization.
Arguments of the Respondents: Respondents No. 3 and 5 (the producers) countered that the film did not depict Shah Bano’s real life but was a fictional story inspired by the judgment and a literary work. They maintained that personality rights and privacy end with death, hence no legal heir can inherit such rights. They invoked the fundamental right of freedom of expression under Article 19(1). They also cited the following authorities:Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi (2023) 20 SCC 660,R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632,R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) 4 SCC 118 – distinction between inspiration and copying,Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 761 – presumption of validity of CBFC certification,Priya Singh Paul v. Madhur Bhandarkar (2018) 13 SCC 438 – protection of creative freedom,Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2642 – holding that privacy and reputation end with death,Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3997 – similar ruling in the Sushant Singh Rajput film dispute.They further contended that the petitioner delayed filing the writ petition until just six days before the film’s release despite being aware of its production since early 2024.
Judicial Reasoning and Analysis: Court examined the submissions and judicial precedents, approaching the dispute through three major questions:
1. Whether the right to privacy, dignity, or reputation survives the death of an individual and can be inherited.2. Whether a dramatized film inspired by public records violates any existing legal right of a deceased person or their heirs.3. Whether the High Court could interfere when an alternate statutory remedy under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 was available.
The Court first noted that the right to privacy, as recognized in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), is a natural and inalienable right that exists only during a person’s lifetime. Quoting paragraph 557 of that judgment, it held that privacy “is born with the human being and extinguishes with the human being.”
Referring to Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay (AIR 2021 Mad 167), the Court emphasized that privacy and reputation cannot be inherited like movable or immovable property. Once a person dies, their right to control representation of their personality ceases. This principle was reaffirmed by the Delhi High Court in Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi (2023 SCC OnLine Del 3997), concerning depiction of a deceased celebrity.
Applying these principles, Justice Verma held that since Shah Bano was no longer alive, her right to privacy and reputation could not be claimed by her daughter. The petitioner also failed to show how her own rights were violated by the film.
The Court then examined the disclaimer attached to the film, which clearly stated that the film was a “dramatized and fictionalized adaptation” inspired by the Shah Bano judgment and the book Bano: Bharat Ki Beti, disclaiming any authenticity or factual accuracy. It also declared that any resemblance to real persons was purely coincidental. Given this, the Court found that the film did not claim to depict actual events or individuals, and therefore could not be said to have fabricated facts about the petitioner’s family.
Justice Verma further referred to R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632, where the Supreme Court held that once information becomes a matter of public record — including court judgments — it ceases to be private and may be freely discussed or dramatized. Since the Shah Bano judgment is part of public record and extensively debated for decades, the Court held that using it as inspiration does not infringe privacy.
The Court also noted that the CBFC, having issued a valid UA certificate, is presumed to have followed due process. Following Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 761, the High Court observed that certification carries a presumption of legality unless procedural irregularity is shown, which was not the case here.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that an effective alternate remedy existed under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act, allowing the petitioner to seek revocation or suspension of the certificate through the Central Government. Her direct approach under Article 226 without availing this remedy was therefore not maintainable.
Lastly, the Court observed that the petitioner’s conduct lacked vigilance, as she waited until the eve of the film’s release to file the petition despite being aware of its making for more than a year. Hence, the writ petition also suffered from delay and laches.
Decision: After a detailed consideration of facts, arguments, and precedents, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that:
1. The right to privacy, dignity, or reputation of Shah Bano Begum ceased upon her death and was not inheritable.
2. The film “Haq” was a fictionalized work inspired by public records and literary material, and did not violate any existing right of the petitioner.
3. The CBFC’s certification carried legal presumption of validity, and the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy that she failed to pursue.
4. The petition suffered from unexplained delay and laches.
Accordingly, the petition was found devoid of merit and dismissed by the Hon’ble Court on 4th November 2025.
Law Settled: This judgment reinforces an emerging judicial consensus that privacy and personality rights are non-heritable and extinguish with death. It also underscores the freedom of artistic and creative expression as long as fictionalization and disclaimers clearly separate fact from dramatization. Moreover, it reaffirms that certification by the CBFC enjoys statutory presumption of legality and that parties must first exhaust remedies under the Cinematograph Act before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: Ms. Siddiqua Begum Khan v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 42708 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-IND:32075
Date of Order: 4th November, 2025
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore
Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice Pranay Verma
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment