Privacy earned in life extinguishes with death and cannot be inherited
In Indore this week, a High Court bench allowed history to remain in the public's hands, ruling that a daughter cannot inherit her mother's right to silence the stories others tell about her. The case centered on HAQ, a film inspired by the landmark Shah Bano judgment of 1985—one of India's most consequential legal moments for Muslim women—and whether a family's grief and pride could override the public's claim to its own documented past. Justice Pranay Verma's ruling affirms an old and necessary principle: that once a life touches the public record, it belongs, in some measure, to all of us.
- Siddiqua Begum Khan sought to stop the film HAQ from releasing, arguing she had inherited her late mother Shah Bano's right to control how her story is told on screen.
- The court rejected this claim outright, ruling that reputational and privacy rights extinguish at death and cannot be passed down like property to surviving family members.
- The filmmakers had included a disclaimer identifying HAQ as a fictional dramatization inspired by a real Supreme Court judgment, which the court accepted as sufficient protection against claims of false portrayal.
- The judge further noted that the Shah Bano case is part of the public record, making it legitimate subject matter for filmmakers, journalists, and scholars to adapt and interpret.
- HAQ, starring Yami Gautam Dhar and Emraan Hashmi and exploring themes of triple talaq and gender equality, cleared its final legal hurdle in time for its worldwide release on November 7, 2025.
A Madhya Pradesh High Court bench this week dismissed a petition seeking to block the release of HAQ, a film inspired by the landmark 1985 Supreme Court ruling in the Shah Bano case. The petition was filed by Siddiqua Begum Khan, daughter of Shah Bano Begum, who argued that the filmmakers had no right to dramatize her mother's life without the family's permission—that she had inherited her mother's reputational rights and could exercise them to stop the film.
Justice Pranay Verma, sitting at the Indore Bench, rejected this reasoning at its foundation. Privacy and reputation, the court held, belong to the living person who earned them. They cannot be inherited. Once a person dies, their right to control their public image dies with them, and no family member can claim that power in their place.
The film itself draws from the Supreme Court's ruling that divorced Muslim women are entitled to maintenance from their former husbands—a decision that reshaped the legal landscape for women's rights in India. Director Suparn S Varma built a story around that judgment, exploring the Uniform Civil Code, triple talaq, and equality before the law. The filmmakers included a disclaimer identifying the work as a fictional dramatization adapted from both a book and the court judgment, and the court accepted this framing entirely. Dramatization, the judge noted, is simply how stories are told on screen—creative compression and invention do not constitute false portrayal.
Equally significant was the court's reasoning about public records. The Shah Bano judgment exists in the documented history of the nation's courts. Once something enters the public domain in that way, it becomes legitimate subject matter for filmmakers, journalists, and scholars to examine and reinterpret. The court observed that this principle is foundational to press freedom. The judge also noted that Siddiqua had an alternative path available—challenging the film's censor certificate through the Central Board of Film Certification—rather than coming directly to the courts.
HAQ, starring Yami Gautam Dhar and Emraan Hashmi and produced by Junglee Pictures, was set for worldwide release on November 7, 2025—the same week the ruling was handed down.
A Madhya Pradesh High Court bench cleared the path for HAQ to reach theaters this week, dismissing a legal challenge that sought to block the film's release. The petition had been filed by Siddiqua Begum Khan, daughter of Shah Bano Begum, the woman at the center of one of India's most consequential Supreme Court decisions on Muslim women's rights. Siddiqua argued that the filmmakers had no right to dramatize her mother's life and the landmark 1985 judgment without permission from the family—that she had inherited her mother's reputational rights upon Shah Bano's death, and those rights belonged to her to control.
Justice Pranay Verma, sitting at the Indore Bench, rejected this claim with a principle that cuts to the heart of how the law treats legacy and memory. Privacy and reputation, the judge wrote, die with the person who earned them. They cannot be passed down like property, whether land or goods. Once a person is gone, their right to control their public image goes with them. The court's reasoning was direct: the family had no inherited claim to prevent the film.
The film itself, titled HAQ and starring Yami Gautam Dhar and Emraan Hashmi, draws inspiration from the Supreme Court's decision in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum—a case that fundamentally shifted the legal landscape for divorced Muslim women by ruling they were entitled to maintenance from their former husbands. Director Suparn S Varma has built a story around that judgment, exploring themes of the Uniform Civil Code, triple talaq, and gender equality before the law. The filmmakers had included a disclaimer stating the work was fictional, dramatized, and adapted from both a book and the court judgment itself.
The court accepted this framing entirely. Because the film carries a clear disclaimer that it is a dramatization and a work of fiction inspired by real events, the judge reasoned, it cannot be called fabricated. Fictional adaptations of true stories require some creative leeway—some reimagining, some compression, some invention for dramatic effect. That is the nature of the form. The presence of dramatization does not constitute sensationalization or false portrayal; it is simply how stories are told on screen.
There was another layer to the court's reasoning that mattered just as much. The Shah Bano case itself is a matter of public record. The Supreme Court judgment exists in the public domain. Once something enters the public record—once it becomes part of the documented history of the courts and the nation—it ceases to be private. It becomes fair game for journalists, filmmakers, scholars, and commentators to examine, discuss, adapt, and reinterpret. The court noted that this principle is foundational to press freedom and media expression. A matter of public record cannot be locked away by the family of the person involved.
The court also noted that Siddiqua had another avenue available to her if she wished to challenge the film: she could have approached the Central Board of Film Certification, which had already granted the film its censor certificate, and requested that the government revoke or suspend it. Instead, she had come directly to the courts. The judge's observation suggested this was not the proper forum for her grievance.
HAQ is produced by Junglee Pictures in association with Insomnia Films and Baweja Studios. The cast includes not only Gautam Dhar and Hashmi but also Vartika Singh in her film debut, alongside Sheeba Chaddha, Danish Hussain, and Aseem Hattangady. The film was written by Reshu Nath. It is set to release worldwide on November 7, 2025—the same week the court issued its decision. The ruling clears the final legal hurdle for the film to reach audiences.
Citas Notables
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.— Justice Pranay Verma, Madhya Pradesh High Court
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.— Justice Pranay Verma, Madhya Pradesh High Court
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why did the daughter believe she had the right to stop this film from being made?
She argued that when her mother died, she inherited the right to control her mother's reputation and image—that this was a kind of property that could pass down through the family, like an estate.
And the court disagreed with that entirely?
Completely. The judge said privacy and reputation are personal to the person who earned them. They don't survive death. They can't be inherited or transferred. Once you're gone, your family doesn't own your public image.
So what made this case about a public record?
The Shah Bano judgment itself—the Supreme Court decision the film is based on—is already in the public domain. It's documented history. Once something is public record, anyone can write about it, adapt it, dramatize it. The family can't reclaim it as private.
Did the filmmakers help their own case by putting a disclaimer in the movie?
It certainly didn't hurt. The court said because the film clearly states it's fictional and dramatized, it can't be accused of fabrication. Dramatization is expected in film. Some creative liberty is built into the form.
What's the larger principle here for filmmakers and journalists?
That matters of public record—court cases, historical events, documented facts—belong to the public sphere once they're official. Families don't get to lock them away, even if the story involves their relatives.