Madhya Pradesh HC: 𝑺𝒉𝒂𝒉 𝑩𝒂𝒏𝒐’𝒔 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒕𝒐 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒄𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒖𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 by her descendants.

 The primary contention of the petitioner is that the film has violated the right of privacy, dignity and reputation of Smt. Shah Bano. It explicitly dramatizes the personal and matrimonial life of late parents of the petitioner without her knowledge or consent. The film intrudes into marital life of Smt. Shah Bano and violates her posthumous dignity. The violation of right of privacy is hence alleged to be that of Smt. Shah Bano. In K.S. Puttaswamy (Supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that right to privacy of any individual extinguishes with the human being. It has been held as under:

"557. In my considered opinion, “right to privacy of any individual” is essentially a natural right, which inheres in every human being by birth. Such right remains with the human being till he/she breathes their last. It is indeed inseparable and inalienable from human being. In other words, it is born with the human being and extinguishes with human being." {Para 8}

09. In Deepa Jaya Kumar Vs. A.L. Vijay and Others AIR 2021 Mad

167 it has been held by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court that 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. It comes to an end after his or her lifetime. Posthumans right is not an alienable right. It has been held as under:

"38. On an analysis of the aforesaid judgment(s), it is clear that a privacy or reputation earned by a person during his or her life time, extinguishes with his or her death. After the death of a person, the reputation earned cannot be inherited like a movable or immovable property by his or her legal heirs. Such personality right, reputation or privacy enjoyed by a person during his life time comes to an end after his or her life time. Therefore, we are of the opinion that “posthumous right” is not an “alienable right” and the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled for an injunction on the ground that the “posthumous right” of her aunt is sought to be sullied by the respondents/defendants by reason of the release of the film titled as“Thalaivi”. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

WRIT PETITION No. 42708 of 2025

MS. SIDDIQUA BEGUM KHAN Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA

ON THE 4th OF NOVEMBER, 2025

 CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:32075

Print Page

When court can grant mandatory injunction to protect reputation of plaintiff?

This illustration refers to the offence of defamation under the Indian Penal Code and the power of the Court to grant mandatory injunction when a prima facie case is made that the reputation of a person or persons is involved in the suit. In those circumstances, it is open to the Court to put an end to the threat of defamation by a mandatory injunction. When we are dealing with a case of defamation we are dealing with personal rights, viz., right to live in dignity and the right to live without one's reputation being besmirched by others. Loss of reputation and consequent loss of character and dignity in one's life cannot be compensated in terms of money. Plaintiffs have advisedly claimed one rupee as damaes In he circumstances Defendants 4 to 8 should be restrained for a temporary period from exhibiting the film in question.

Karnataka High Court

Sonakka Gopalagowda Shanthaveri ... vs U.R. Anantha Murthy And Ors. on 2 December, 1987

Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 Kant 255

Bench: P Bopanna

Print Page

Members of Subordinate judiciary look up to High Court not only for discipline but also for dignity.

 The High Court for the reasons which are not stated decided to depute the Director of Vigilance to hold an enquiry. It is indeed strange that the High Court which had control over the judiciary asked the Government to hold an enquiry through the Vigilance Department. The members of the subordinate judiciary are not only, under the control of the High Court but are also under the care and custody of the High Court. The High Court failed to discharge the duty of preserving its control. The request by the High Court to hold an enquiry through the Director of Vigilance was an act of self abnegations. The High Court should have conducted the enquiry preferably through District Judges. The members of the Subordinate judiciary look up to High Court not only for discipline but also for dignity. The enquiry officer nominated by the Director of Vigilance recorded the statements of witnesses behind the back of the appellant. The enquiry was to ascertain the truth of allegations of misconduct. Neither the report nor the statements recorded by the Enquiry Officer reached the appellant. The Enquiry Officer gave his findings on allegations of misconduct. The High Court accepted the report of Enquiry Officer and wrote to the Government that in the light of the report, the appellant was not a suitable person to be retained in service.

Supreme Court of India

Shamsher Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 23 August, 1974

Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 2192, 1975 SCR (1) 814

Print Page