The Haq film controversy reignites the constitutional clash between freedom of expression and the right to privacy after death, questioning whether creative liberty can override posthumous dignity in portraying real-life figures like Shah Bano.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The movie ‘Haq‘, starring Yami Gautam Dhar and Emraan Hashmi, has reignited a key constitutional question:
“Do privacy rights survive after death, and how far can freedom of expression extend when its subject can no longer defend their reputation?”
Inspired by the historic 1985 Shah Bano case, the film at the centre of a legal battle in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The movie, Haq, has sparked a courtroom clash between two fundamental rights: the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to privacy and dignity, even after death. While the film’s creators invoke creative liberty and the public nature of the historical case, Shah Bano’s daughter, Siddiqua Begum Khan, argues that the movie intrudes upon her late mother’s privacy, distorts her legacy, and causes reputational harm.
This tension between artistic freedom and posthumous privacy is not new, but Haq brings it into sharper focus in an era where biographical films and true-story adaptations are thriving.
Let’s explore the Haq controversy and dive into this fragile balance between storytelling and respect for the dead. This debate could redefine how India understands both creative liberty and posthumous privacy rights in the years to come.
The ‘Haq’ Controversy
Bollywood actors Emraan Hashmi and Yami Gautam’s film Haq, a hard-hitting legal and emotional drama inspired by the landmark 1985 Shah Bano case. The film dives deep into women’s rights, secularism, and the conflict between religious law and constitutional justice.
Drawing from the real-life case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, the film portrays the emotional and legal battle of a woman fighting for maintenance after being divorced through triple talaq. Through its protagonists, Abbas (Hashmi) and Shah Bano (Gautam), Haq explores the clash between faith, gender equality, and legal reform.
However, the film has sparked controversy. Siddiqua Begum, daughter of the late Shah Bano, sent a legal notice to the filmmakers, alleging that her mother’s story was used without the family’s consent and requesting a halt to the release until the family could review the script.
Director Suparn Verma responded, clarifying that Haq is a fictionalised work inspired by multiple real cases, not a direct biographical portrayal of Shah Bano’s life.
Siddiqua Begum Khan moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to halt the release of Haq, alleging that it distorts real events and exploits her late mother’s story without consent. She claims the film violates her family’s privacy and dignity by turning personal struggles into entertainment.
Her lawyer argued that while the Supreme Court judgment is public record, the movie wrongly dramatizes Shah Bano’s private life. The filmmakers maintain that Haq is fictional and inspired by multiple real cases, not a biopic, and carries a disclaimer. Justice Verma observed that much of the Shah Bano case is already public, suggesting that mere references may not breach privacy.
What the MP High Court Held
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the petition seeking to block the release of Haq. The plea, filed by Siddiqua Begum Khan, daughter of Shah Bano, alleged that the movie distorted facts and used her mother’s story without consent.
Justice Pranay Verma of the Indore Bench rejected the claims that a person’s right to privacy and reputation ends with death and cannot be inherited. The Court held that since Shah Bano’s case is part of public court records, it no longer enjoys privacy protection and can be depicted or discussed in creative works.
The bench accepted the filmmakers’ position that Haq is a fictionalised drama, not a biopic, and noted that it carries a clear disclaimer stating it is inspired by the Supreme Court’s 1985 judgment. The Court also criticised the petitioner for filing the plea just before the film’s release and for not pursuing available remedies under the Cinematograph Act.
Publicity and Personality Rights
In India, publicity and personality rights are not governed by a single law but emerge from tort, contract, and intellectual property principles. These rights protect individuals, especially public figures, from the unauthorised commercial use of their identity.
Using someone’s name, image, or likeness for advertising or profit without consent can amount to misappropriation. The key legal tension lies between public interest and commercial exploitation.
As noted by the Delhi High Court in the Sushant Singh Rajput case, freedom of expression is protected when a portrayal is based on publicly available information and does not cause actual harm or defamation.
The Shah Bano–Haq controversy once again highlights this constitutional dilemma: should filmmakers have unrestricted creative freedom to reinterpret real stories, or must the dignity and privacy of individuals, living or deceased, set the boundaries of that freedom?
Freedom of Speech vs Privacy of the Deceased
Freedom of Expression
Under the Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. When filmmakers create movies, they rely on this right to dramatise, comment, critique, and portray events, persons and issues in society. The right is not absolute, Article 19(2) permits “reasonable restrictions” in the interests of e.g., privacy, public order, decency, defamation.
Right to Privacy / Reputation
In recent jurisprudence (notably K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India), the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. However, one major issue remains: what about the right of a deceased person? And can their heirs claim that right after death (posthumous right)?
Privacy Beyond Life: Do the Dead Have Rights?
The Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, from equality to constitutional remedies, to protect citizens from arbitrary state action. Yet, one question often overlooked is: what happens to these rights after death?
Legally, most rights end with life. The dead cannot marry, vote, or claim privacy. Their medical records can be accessed by family members, and personal decisions like wills or burial wishes are honoured not because the dead enforce them, but because society respects them. Courts thus balance between honouring a deceased person’s wishes and recognising that they can no longer make real-time choices.
What is Privacy Under Law?
Privacy allows individuals to make personal decisions and live free from public intrusion. It is a universal human right, recognised by international instruments like the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Simply put, it is an individual’s control over how much of their life is exposed to others.
Privacy Begins and Ends with Life
In the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) case, the Supreme Court affirmed that privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. It is a natural right that exists from birth and ends with death, essential for human dignity and autonomy.
Can Privacy Be Inherited?
Courts have consistently held that it cannot. In Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay (2021), the Madras High Court ruled that a deceased person’s right to privacy is not inheritable. The judgment stated that once a person dies, their reputation and privacy cease to exist as enforceable rights.
The court further emphasised that freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) allows filmmakers and artists to depict real events, as long as they do so responsibly. Art, the court noted, plays a crucial role in reflecting social realities, a cornerstone of democracy.
In essence, privacy dies with the person, while freedom of expression continues to live, a delicate balance that keeps constitutional values dynamic even after death.
Right to Privacy and Key Precedents
The Supreme Court’s K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) judgment established the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, covering personal autonomy, choices, and control over personal information. But a key constitutional question remains: Does privacy survive death?
Indian courts have repeatedly grappled with this in cases involving public figures. In the Veerappan case (2007), the Madras High Court held that depictions of deceased persons can be restricted only if they defame or emotionally harm living relatives, not merely the dead.
Similarly, in Deepa Jayakumar vs A.L. Vijay (2019), concerning films based on J. Jayalalithaa, the court ruled that privacy ends with death, though relatives may claim protection if their own reputation is affected.
In 2021, the Delhi High Court, while dismissing a plea by Sushant Singh Rajput’s father, reaffirmed that privacy, publicity, and personality rights are not heritable and cease upon death. The court added that filmmakers retain freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) when dramatizing publicly available information, provided they stay within the limits of Article 19(2).
The Shah Bano Case: A Legal Landmark
The Shah Bano case (Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum) remains a cornerstone in India’s legal and social history. In 1978, 62-year-old Shah Bano, divorced under Islamic law, sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in her favor, stating that Section 125 applies to all citizens, regardless of religion. However, due to political pressure, the Rajiv Gandhi government later enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which overturned the ruling, sparking nationwide debates on gender equality and religious law.
Background:
Shah Bano Begum married lawyer Mohd. Ahmed Khan in 1932 and had five children. In 1975, at age 62, she was abandoned by her husband and denied maintenance. When she appealed for financial support under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), her husband argued that under Muslim Personal Law, he was only required to provide for her during the iddat period (three months post-divorce).
Legal Issues:
The case raised several key questions:
- Does “wife” under Section 125 include a divorced Muslim woman?
- Can secular law override personal law in matters of maintenance?
- Is the CrPC applicable to all citizens regardless of religion?
Judgment:
In 1985, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, ruled in Shah Bano’s favour.
The court held that Section 125 CrPC applies to all citizens, regardless of religion, and that a Muslim husband’s duty to maintain his divorced wife extends beyond the iddat period if she cannot support herself. It also clarified that Mehar (dower) cannot substitute for lifelong maintenance.
Conclusion: Balancing Liberty and Legacy
The Haq controversy brings to light a profound constitutional and moral dilemma: where does one draw the line between creative freedom and respect for the deceased? The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision reaffirms that the right to privacy ends with death, while freedom of speech and expression continues to thrive as a living constitutional value.
This ruling highlights that once a matter enters the public domain, such as the Shah Bano judgment, it becomes a legitimate subject for artistic interpretation and public debate. Yet, it also serves as a reminder that artistic liberty carries an ethical responsibility to portray real-life inspirations with sensitivity and integrity.
In a democratic society, freedom of expression cannot exist without accountability, just as privacy cannot survive without limits. The Haq case thus does more than decide a film’s fate; it challenges India to re-examine how it balances individual dignity with collective freedom, ensuring that even when a voice is gone, its story is told with truth, care, and respect.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Shah Bano
