The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed against the release of the film "Faraaz". The court, while dismissing the petition filed against the filmmaker Hansal Mehta, noted that the "right to privacy" is essentially a "right in personal" and is "not inheritable" by the mothers/legal heirs of a deceased person.

While observing the right to privacy as a right in personam, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna refers to Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay & Ors. (2021 SCC OnLine Mad 2642) where it was held that "the "right to privacy of an individual", cannot be inherited after his or her death by his or legal heirs. It is clear that privacy or reputation earned by a person during his or her lifetime 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 lifetime comes to an end after his or her lifetime."

The petition was filed by mothers who had lost their daughters in an attack. They were concerned that their daughters would be portrayed negatively, so they requested an injunction in their favour. The film was accused of violating their rights to privacy and fair trial under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. They claimed that the facts depicted in the film are part of an ongoing investigation in a case before Bangladeshi courts, and that any movie based on distorted facts would jeopardise the ongoing investigation.

The petitioner also requested that a pre-screening be held before the court in the presence of the petitioners and their representatives to determine the infringing content in the film.

Noting the facts, the Court held that "The Right of Privacy which is agitated by the plaintiffs is that of the two daughters who have admittedly died in the attack. As already discussed above, Right to Privacy is essentially a right in personam and is not inheritable by the mothers/ legal heirs of the deceased persons."

Furthermore, the court observed that preventing the defendants from screening the film after they had spent money preparing it would result in irreparable loss and injury, essentially when the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate what irreparable loss and injury they suffered as a result of the screening.

While ruling on the issue of defamation and emotional trauma, the court also stated that the defamation of a deceased person does not give rise to a civil or common law right of action in favour of the surviving family or relatives who have not been defamed.

 Case Title: RUBA AHMED & ANR. v. HANSAL MEHTA & ORS.

Case number: CS(OS) 498/2021