{"id":11476,"date":"2025-11-13T06:38:54","date_gmt":"2025-11-13T06:38:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11476"},"modified":"2025-11-13T06:44:06","modified_gmt":"2025-11-13T06:44:06","slug":"posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/","title":{"rendered":"Posthumous Privacy and Cinematic Freedom"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"factual-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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 \u201cHaq\u201d, which was scheduled for release on 7th November 2025. The film claimed to be inspired by the historical Shah Bano case \u2014 Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556 \u2014 a landmark Supreme Court decision that became a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional and personal law discourse.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Procedural_History\" >Procedural History<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Arguments_of_the_Petitioner\" >Arguments of the Petitioner<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Judgments_Relied_On\" >Judgments Relied On:<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Arguments_of_the_Respondents\" >Arguments of the Respondents<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Authorities_Cited\" >Authorities Cited:<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Law_Settled\" >Law Settled<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/posthumous-privacy-and-cinematic-freedom\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-history\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_History\"><\/span>Procedural History<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>The matter was heard finally with the consent of the parties, considering the film\u2019s imminent release. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had already granted a UA 13+ certificate on 28th October 2025.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"core-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The primary dispute centered on whether the film \u201cHaq\u201d, 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 \u2014 the petitioner \u2014 could claim to have inherited such posthumous rights. The petitioner contended that dramatizing private aspects of her late mother\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<p>The respondents, on the other hand, defended the film as a fictional and dramatized adaptation of the English book \u201cBano: Bharat ki Beti\u201d 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\u2019s death and that freedom of artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protected their work.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"arguments-petitioner\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_of_the_Petitioner\"><\/span>Arguments of the Petitioner<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The petitioner argued that releasing the film without her consent infringed her mother\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"petitioner-cited-judgments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgments_Relied_On\"><\/span>Judgments Relied On:<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 \u2013 recognizing privacy as a facet of the right to life<\/li>\n<li>R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632 \u2013 on limits of media publication of private life<\/li>\n<li>Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi (2002) 4 SCC 30 \u2013 balancing free speech with individual reputation<\/li>\n<li>Phoolan Devi v. Shekhar Kapoor 1994 SCC OnLine Del 788 \u2013 depiction of a living person\u2019s life in film required consent<\/li>\n<li>Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) 50 PTC 486 (Del) \u2013 concerning personality and publicity rights<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The petitioner emphasized that her late mother\u2019s life, although connected to a public judgment, remained largely private and not intended for commercial dramatization.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"arguments-respondents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_of_the_Respondents\"><\/span>Arguments of the Respondents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Respondents No. 3 and 5 (the producers) countered that the film did not depict Shah Bano\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"respondents-cited-judgments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Authorities_Cited\"><\/span>Authorities Cited:<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Babuji Rawji Shah v. S. Hussain Zaidi (2023) 20 SCC 660<\/li>\n<li>R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632<\/li>\n<li>R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) 4 SCC 118 \u2013 distinction between inspiration and copying<\/li>\n<li>Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 761 \u2013 presumption of validity of CBFC certification<\/li>\n<li>Priya Singh Paul v. Madhur Bhandarkar (2018) 13 SCC 438 \u2013 protection of creative freedom<\/li>\n<li>Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2642 \u2013 privacy and reputation end with death<\/li>\n<li>Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3997 \u2013 ruling in Sushant Singh Rajput dispute<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>They further contended that the petitioner delayed filing the writ petition until just six days before the film\u2019s release despite being aware of its production since early 2024.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court examined the submissions and judicial precedents, approaching the dispute through three major questions:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Whether the right to privacy, dignity, or reputation survives the death of an individual and can be inherited.<\/li>\n<li>Whether a dramatized film inspired by public records violates any existing legal right of a deceased person or their heirs.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the High Court could interfere when an alternate statutory remedy under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 was available.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>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\u2019s lifetime. Quoting paragraph 557 of that judgment, it held that privacy \u201cis born with the human being and extinguishes with the human being.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>The Court then examined the disclaimer attached to the film, which clearly stated that the film was a \u201cdramatized and fictionalized adaptation\u201d 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\u2019s family.<\/p>\n<p>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 \u2014 including court judgments \u2014 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.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Lastly, the Court observed that the petitioner\u2019s conduct lacked vigilance, as she waited until the eve of the film\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>After a detailed consideration of facts, arguments, and precedents, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The right to privacy, dignity, or reputation of Shah Bano Begum ceased upon her death and was not inheritable.<\/li>\n<li>The film \u201cHaq\u201d was a fictionalized work inspired by public records and literary material, and did not violate any existing right of the petitioner.<\/li>\n<li>The CBFC\u2019s certification carried legal presumption of validity, and the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy that she failed to pursue.<\/li>\n<li>The petition suffered from unexplained delay and laches.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Accordingly, the petition was found devoid of merit and dismissed by the Hon\u2019ble Court on 4th November 2025.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled\"><\/span>Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<table border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Ms. Siddiqua Begum Khan v. Union of India &amp; Others<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Writ Petition No. 42708 of 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>2025:MPHC-IND:32075<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Date of Order<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>4th November, 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Coram<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Hon\u2019ble Shri Justice Pranay Verma<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"author\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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 \u201cHaq\u201d, which was scheduled for release on 7th November 2025.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[3095,24],"class_list":{"0":"post-11476","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-copyright-law","8":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11476"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11476\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}