Can Shah Bano's Heir Stop the Movie 'Haq' Before Its Premiere?
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
Indore, Nov 4 (NationPress) As the release date of the Yami Gautam Dhar-Emraan Hashmi film 'Haq' approaches on November 7, it faces a legal challenge in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Siddiqua Begum Khan, the daughter of the renowned Shah Bano Begum, has submitted a petition objecting to the film's unauthorized portrayal of her mother's personal narrative without the family's consent.
Directed by Suparn S Varma and produced by Junglee Pictures and Baweja Studios, 'Haq' dramatizes the landmark 1985 Supreme Court ruling in 'Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum'.
This pivotal ruling revolutionized traditional norms, stating that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to financial support from her ex-husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the film, actress Yami Gautam portrays Shazia Bano, a character inspired by Shah Bano, who battles in court against Abbas, played by Emraan Hashmi.
The narrative is derived from the book 'Bano: Bharat Ki Beti' authored by Jigna Vora. During a court session at the Indore Bench presided by Justice Pranay Verma, attorney Tousif Warsi represented Siddiqua.
He asserted, 'This movie is not merely inspired—it's a complete replication of Shah Bano's personal hardships. The teasers misrepresent her and transform genuine suffering into fictional accounts. We, the daughters, never granted permission. The CBFC approved it without thorough review!'
He referred to a prior legal notice sent to the filmmakers and the CBFC.
Warsi criticized the trailers for fabricating false events while using her mother's authentic name and life. The producers countered by highlighting a disclaimer in the film.
They argued that 'Haq' is 'fictional storytelling' based on public court documents—thus, no explicit permission is needed. Legal representatives from the CBFC remarked, 'Anything in public records can be freely utilized; it's merely inspired and does not harm anyone.'
Justice Verma noted, 'If she has faced struggles, shouldn’t that be acknowledged rather than disparaged? This could be seen as a person advocating for her rights.' However, the court noted that the disclaimer was not available in the court documents, leading to a postponement of the case.
The bench requested the production of the disclaimer the following day; the session is set to continue on Tuesday.