-
by Admin
18 February 2026 2:25 PM
“Posthumous rights are not inheritable – Once a story enters public domain, it becomes subject to creative liberty protected by Article 19(1)(a)” - In a significant judgment delivered Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Ms. Siddiqua Begum Khan, daughter of Late Shah Bano Begum, seeking to restrain the release of the film ‘Haq’, which she alleged fictionalized and dramatized her late mother’s life without consent. The Court, in Writ Petition No. 42708 of 2025, held that privacy and personality rights extinguish upon death and cannot be inherited, thereby denying the petitioner any legal standing to challenge the film’s release on that ground.
Justice Pranay Verma ruled that the portrayal in the film, being a fictional and dramatized adaptation inspired by a public Supreme Court judgment, could not be legally restrained, especially since the film carried a detailed disclaimer and had already received certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
“Once a Person Dies, Their Privacy Dies With Them – Legal Heirs Can’t Claim Emotional Injury Over Fictional Narratives”
The petitioner contended that the film ‘Haq’, set to release on 7th November 2025, was an unauthorized dramatization of her mother’s personal life. She claimed the film was based on fabricated sources, contained sensationalized depictions, and violated the dignity and legacy of her mother, Late Shah Bano Begum, who was at the centre of the historic Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum judgment in 1985.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and the Madras High Court’s decision in Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay (2021), reiterating:
“Right to privacy of any individual is essentially a natural right... born with the human being and extinguishes with human being.” [Para 8]
The Court further observed:
“Privacy or reputation earned by a person during life extinguishes with their death. It cannot be inherited like movable or immovable property.” [Para 9]
Hence, the daughter had no inheritable right to claim privacy or personality violation on behalf of her deceased mother.
“Dramatization Based on Public Records Is Not Illegal – Creative Freedom Prevails”
The Court found that the movie was not a biopic of Shah Bano Begum, but a dramatized, fictional work inspired by public records including the 1985 Supreme Court ruling and the book ‘Bano: Bharat Ki Beti’. The disclaimers presented before the Court clearly stated that:
“The film is not and does not claim to be a biopic or documentary... Any resemblance to real persons is purely coincidental and unintentional.” [Para 11]
Justice Verma reasoned that even if personal elements were used in dramatization, the creators were within their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a):
“Since the film is an inspiration and a fiction, some amount of leeway is certainly permissible... It does not claim to be a true story.” [Para 12]
The Court also referred to the precedent in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), which held that information in public domain ceases to enjoy privacy protection, and that public records can be freely commented upon in media or fiction.
“Challenge to CBFC Certificate Cannot Bypass Available Remedy – Writ Petition Not Maintainable”
The Court emphasized that the petitioner failed to challenge the CBFC certification through the statutory appellate remedy under Section 5-E of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, which allows appeal to the Central Government. The petitioner instead directly approached the High Court.
“In the absence of any challenge to the CBFC certificate or procedural irregularity, no interference is justified under Article 226.” [Para 14]
The CBFC had granted the film a UA 13+ Certificate on 28.10.2025, and there was a presumption of due compliance with guidelines unless shown otherwise — a burden the petitioner failed to discharge.
“Petitioner Slept Over Her Rights – Delay and Laches Bar Equitable Relief”
The High Court found that the petitioner had delayed approaching the Court, despite being aware of the film’s development since February 2024. The teaser was released in September 2025, and the certification was granted in October 2025, yet the writ petition was filed only on 1st November 2025, merely six days before release.
“Her conduct is hence not that of a vigilant litigant. The petition suffers from delay and laches.” [Para 16]
The Court noted that equitable relief under Article 226 is discretionary, and such unexplained delay is fatal.
“No Pleadings, No Consideration – Oral Arguments Alleging Community Insult Declined”
Interestingly, during oral submissions, the petitioner’s counsel attempted to argue that certain dialogues in the teaser were defamatory to a religious community. However, the Court declined to consider these arguments as they were not pleaded in the writ petition:
“It is well settled that in absence of pleading no ground can be raised orally... The Court cannot permit factual aspects to be introduced at the stage of argument.” [Para 7]
Right to Privacy Ends at Death, and Public Records Are Fair Game for Fiction
Justice Pranay Verma concluded that the petitioner failed to show any legal or constitutional right violated, and that the film’s fictional nature, proper certification, disclaimer, and use of public material placed it firmly within legal and constitutional boundaries.
“Petitioner has failed to make out any case for interfering in the matter. Petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.” [Para 18]
This ruling reinforces the constitutional protection of artistic freedom, clarifies the limits of posthumous privacy, and sends a strong message about judicial reluctance to pre-censor fictional works inspired by public events.
Date of Decision: 4 November 2025
