The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition to restrain the release of the film 'Haq' which draws inspiration from the Shah Bano case in which the Supreme Court ruled in favour of giving maintenance to divorced Muslim women [Siddiqua Begum Khan Vs Union of India].

The Emraan Hashmi, Yami Gautam starrer film is set to release on November 7.

The petition against the movie was filed by Shah Bano Begum's daughter, Siddiqua Begum Khan, contending that the film distorted personal events that took place in Shah Bano's life.

She argued that the filmmakers could not have made such a film, depicting such personal events, without first taking consent from Bano's family or her legal heirs.

Siddiqua said that the movie commercially exploits the privacy and personality of her deceased mother without taking consent from her legal heirs. She added that she had inherited her late mother's reputational rights after Bano's death.

Justice Pranay Verma at the Indore Bench of the High Court has rejected these arguments, holding,

“Privacy or reputation earned by a person during his or her lifetime extinguishes with his or her death. It cannot be inherited like a movable or immovable property."

The Court further accepted the filmmaker's stance that the film is only inspired by the Supreme Court case but is otherwise fictional and that a disclaimer about this is also part of the movie.

'Since the disclaimer itself states that the same is dramatization and is fictional and an adaptation of a book and is inspired by a judgment of the Apex Court, it cannot be said that the contents of the film are fabricated. Since the film is an inspiration and a fiction, some amount of leeway is certainly permissible and merely because the same is done, it cannot be said that there has been any sensationalization or false portrayal," the Court said.

Since the filmmakers themselves have said that the movie does not depict real life personal events, there is no question of any such event being distorted, the judge added.

"The contention that the script/dialogues are fabricated and not drawn from any legitimate or judicial source also cannot be accepted since the movie does not claim to be a true story of any individual. The contention of the petitioner may have been acceptable if the film had been claimed to be true but it is only claimed to be a dramatized and fictionalized adaptation and an inspiration... The film is not stated to be based purely upon the decision in the case of Shah Bano hence if it contains any personal or matrimonial details for the purpose of dramatization and picturization, nothing wrong can be found in the same. The contention of the petitioner that the film is a fabrication and is based on fictional narrative hence cannot be accepted," the November 4 judgment made available more recently said.

The Court also noted in its final verdict that the film is stated to be largely inspired from publicly available court records.

"Once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right of privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by the Press and Media amongst others. The same is precisely the fact situation in the present case," it said.

The Court further accepted an argument by the filmmakers that the petitioner had an alternative remedy in the matter - of approaching the Central government for revoking or suspending the censor certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) - instead of directly coming to Court.

Moreover, it also faulted the petitioner for delaying her legal challenge.

"The petitioner did not act immediately but preferred this petition on 01.11.2025 i.e. less than a week prior to release of the film and that too after grant of the Certificate... At least a month ago, cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court had accrued but she waited for a considerable period of time for preferring this petition. Her conduct is hence not that of a vigilant litigant," the Court said, before eventually dismissing the plea.

Advocate Tousif Warsi appeared for Shah Bano's daughter.

The Union of India was represented by Deputy Solicitor General of India Romesh Dave.

Insomnia Films (a producer) was represented by advocates HY Mehta, Chinmay Mehta briefed by Pooja Tidke, Monisha Mane, Chandrajit Das and Pavanaj H from Parinaam Law Associates.

Junglee Pictures was represented by Senior Advocate Ajay Bagadia and advocate Ritik Gupta along with advocate Jasmeet Kaur, briefed by Anand Naik & Co.

[Read Judgment]