Shah Bano Begum’s daughter moves Madhya Pradesh High Court to restrain release of film ‘Haq’

The daughter of Shah Bano Begum - whose legal battle in in 1980s led to the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in favor of giving maintenance to divorced Muslim women - has moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court to stop the release of the film ‘Haq’ based on the same case [Siddiqua Begum Khan Vs Union of India].

The Emraan Hashmi, Yami Gautam starrer film is set to release on November 7. Shah Bano's daughter, Siddiqua Begum Khan, has argued that the film should not have been made without consent from Bano's heirs since it involves depiction of personal events.

The teasers and trailers of the film weave a fictional narrative that distorts the personalities and private lives of the individuals involved, Siddiqua Beum's plea says.

Justice Pranay Verma at the Indore Bench of the High Court briefly heard the matter today, when one of the producers, Junglee Films, argued that the movie already contains a disclaimer that it is fictional in nature and not a biopic. Therefore, there was no need to get any consent from Shah Bano's heirs to make the film, he said.

"Does it say the movie is fictional?" the judge asked today.

"It is preceded by a regular disclaimer," the counsel representing Junglee films said.

The Court proceeded to ask the filmmakers to place on record this disclaimer. The matter will be heard further tomorrow.

"Bring it on record, this disclaimer," Justice Verma told the parties.

The petition has been filed against the director and producer of the film seeking directions to restrain the filmmakers from releasing, screening, promoting, or publishing the film.

In the plea, Siddiqua Begum Khan has stated that the film commercially exploits the privacy and personality of her deceased mother without taking consent from her legal heirs.

She adds that as a result, her privacy, dignity and reputation would be affected as well. The petitioner has contended that she has inherited her mother's personality and moral rights, which would stand violated if the film is allowed release.

Siddiqua adds that the film makes a public spectacle of Shah Bano's suffering, which causes grave emotional trauma to her, revives memories of abandonment and humiliation once endured by her late mother.

She further states that the film violates provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 that forbid certification to films that defame or breach privacy 

“Portraying Shah Bano's private marital life as cinematic entertainment converts human suffering into commercial commodity, contrary to constitutional morality. The release of the film will cause permanent emotional and reputational damage to the Petitioner's family,” the petition states. 

During today's hearing of the matter, Court noted that many of the aspects concerning the Shah Bano case is already a matter of public record, since there is a Supreme Court judgment on the same.

Siddiqua's counsel, however, argued that her only objection is to the filmmakers' portrayal of her mother's personal life, and not the depiction of the Supreme Court judgment.

Going by the teaser and trailer of the movie, the film is not confined to the judgment alone, he contended. The film's teaser and trailer refers to real persons, but misrepresents real life events, he argued.

"We are not discussing the judgment, but what they have done is - in the light of judgment, how Shah Bano Begum has struggled during proceedings have been formulated by way of a movie. It is not just the judgment," the counsel said.

"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?" Judge replied.

The counsel, however, maintained that only Shah Bano and her daughters know what she actually went through. There was nothing preventing the filmmakers from first getting their consent, he said. If consent had been sought, Shah Bano's heirs would have been best placed to guide a fair portrayal of events, the lawyer argued.

The filmmakers, meanwhile, argued that the movie is inspired only from the Supreme Court judgment, that movie promos say it is about a 'Bharat ki Beti', that it is a fictionalised adaptation, and that it also contains a disclaimer to indicate that it is a work of fiction.

Notably, the petitioner has also sought directions to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to revoke the censor certification given for the film's release until consent is obtained for the film's exhibition from Shah Bano’s legal heirs.  

“The CBFC's failure to ensure consent from legal heirs before certifying 'Haq constitutes statutory dereliction and constitutional abdication,” the plea said.

The CBFC's counsel today argued that the Board had proceeded on the basis that it is a fictional work, which meant that no such permission was required to be taken.

Siddiqua had earlier issued a legal notice to the producer of the film (Insomnia Media and Content Services Limited) on the same grounds, who allegedly refused to apologise and disowned any legal liability for not seeking consent from Shah Bano's heirs.

This led Siddiqua Begum to approach the High Court for relief.

The petitioner was represented by advocate Tousif Warsi. 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 along with Chandrajit Das, briefed by 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.

[Live Coverage]