Yami Gautam and Emraan Hashmi to bring Shah Bano's battle to the big screen
Actors
Yami Gautam
and
Emraan Hashmi
have successfully wrapped up filming their upcoming historical judgement inspired by one of India's most pivotal legal battles, the 1985
Shah Bano case
. In this much-anticipated film, Yami steps into the shoes of Shah Bano, while Emraan portrays a character inspired by her former husband, Ahmed Khan. The movie aims to shed light on a landmark case that stirred national debate on gender rights, religious personal laws, and constitutional justice.
The case that shook the nation
The Shah Bano case originated in 1978, when 62-year-old Shah Bano filed a plea in Indore seeking maintenance from her husband, Mohammed Ahmad Khan, a respected lawyer who had divorced her after four decades of marriage and five children. Shah Bano invoked Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, a secular provision that mandates maintenance for a divorced woman who is unable to sustain herself.
However, her husband contested the claim, citing Muslim Personal Law, which states a man is only obligated to support his wife during the iddat period, roughly three months post-divorce. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board backed Khan's argument, contending that religious laws must be upheld without interference from the secular judiciary.
The landmark
supreme court ruling
The matter escalated to the Supreme Court, where then Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud upheld Shah Bano's right to maintenance under the CrPC, affirming the High Court's decision. The Court even increased the maintenance amount. The verdict was hailed for reinforcing the supremacy of constitutional law over personal religious codes when it comes to individual rights.
A call for uniform civil code
The case reignited the national conversation around gender equality, secularism, and the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The ruling emphasized that personal laws should not override fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, especially in a democratic and secular state.
Yami Gautam looks charming and ethereal in a multi-coloured suit salwar at airport
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Who Is Amir Tataloo? Iranian Pop Star Sentenced To Death For Blasphemy
Last Updated: Iran's Supreme Court sentenced singer Amir Tataloo to death for blasphemy. Tataloo was jailed, moved to Turkey in 2018, arrested in 2023, and extradited. Iran's Supreme Court has handed down a death sentence to popular Iranian singer Amir Tataloo, born Amir Hossein Maghsoudloo, after convicting him of blasphemy, including insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Tataloo was earlier handed a five-year prison sentence on similar charges; however, the case was later reopened following a prosecutor's objection. After the review, the court overturned the previous ruling and issued the death penalty in January this year. Iranian singer Amir Tataloo Amir Tataloo was born on September 21, 1987, in Tehran's Majidieh neighbourhood. Due to his family's financial struggles, he balanced work and studies from a young age. At 14, he worked in a carpentry workshop and later, between 16 and 18, he was employed at a grocery store. After completing his studies, Tataloo pursued his passion for music, starting his career as an underground musician in Iran. He released his debut album 'Zire Hamkaf" in 2011 and went on to become one of Iran's most popular and controversial artists, known for blending pop, R&B, and rap. His first single, which he released in 2003, marked the beginning of his career as an underground musician. He recorded the song Manam Yeki az un Yazdahtam (I'm Also One of Those Eleven Players) for the Iranian National Football Team at the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Tataloo released 'Energy Hastei," a song supporting Iran's nuclear program, during the July 2015 Iran/5+1 nuclear talks in Vienna. The music video was filmed on the Iranian navy ship Damavand, and it topped Google's Persian trending searches. The song sparked controversy, particularly among Iranian Reformists, who drew comparisons to Mohammadreza Shajarian's songs backing the 2009 Iranian protests. He was arrested by the Iranian police in 2016, reportedly for promoting lyrics and a lifestyle that were seen as violating Islamic rules. In 2018, he moved to Turkey, where he created albums and organised big concerts. In 2020, he was under the spotlight again when he said that children under the age of 16 should be allowed to get married. Amir Tataloo relocated to Turkey in 2018. There, he continued to produce music, releasing albums and staging large concerts. However, his presence in Turkey wasn't without controversy. In 2020, Tataloo sparked outrage with his comments on social media, suggesting that children under 16 should be allowed to get married, which drew widespread criticism. Later, in 2023, Turkish authorities arrested him due to an expired passport and handed him over to Iranian authorities, who jailed him on charges including corruption. His first album, Zire Hamkaf, was released in 2021. Since then, he has put out 21 albums. He is the first Iranian to collaborate with Universal Music Group. He was given a 10-year prison sentence for encouraging prostitution. He was also charged with disseminating propaganda against the Islamic Republic and spreading obscene content. Later in May, he was given the death penalty after being found guilty of blasphemy in January. First Published: June 09, 2025, 12:55 IST
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
SC refuses urgent hearing on plea for protection of theatres screening 'Thug Life' in Karnataka
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant an urgent hearing on a plea seeking protection against alleged threats over the screening of Kamal Haasan's film "Thug Life" in Karnataka theatres. A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan asked the theatre association from Karnataka to approach the Karnataka High Court instead. A lawyer, appearing for the petitioner, referred to open threats from fringe groups opposing the screening of the film in Karnataka, and said "there are open threats by fringe elements and they are saying theatres will be set on fire." Justice Mishra, while refusing to grant an urgent hearing, said, "Install fire extinguishers" and asked the petitioner to move the high court. "Thug Life" released in cinema halls across the country on June 5. The Tamil movie, which reunites the 70-year-old actor with filmmaker Mani Ratnam after 1987's "Nayakan", could not be released in Karnataka after Haasan's comments about Kannada language sparked a major controversy. It was also released in Telugu, Hindi and Malayalam.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC declines Karnataka theatre body's plea for protection to screen ‘Thug Life'
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea by a Karnataka theatre association seeking an immediate hearing and protection to screen actor Kamal Haasan's film Thug Life, which has not been released in the state following a controversy over the actor's remarks on the Kannada language. A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan declined to intervene, asking the association to approach the high court instead. 'Install fire extinguishers,' remarked the bench, after the lawyer claimed 'fringe elements' in Karnataka had threatened to set theatres on fire if the film was screened. The controversy originates from a comment made by Haasan at the audio launch of Thug Life in Chennai on May 24, where he reportedly said Kannada was 'born out of Tamil,' sparking widespread backlash in Karnataka. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) responded by barring the film's screening in the state and demanding an apology. Last week, Haasan's counsel informed the Karnataka high court that the actor and his production house, Raajkamal Films International, had voluntarily decided to defer the film's release in the state while seeking dialogue with the KFCC. The court had suggested Haasan offer an apology, observing that while he may be a celebrated actor, he had no right to hurt the sentiments of Kannadigas. 'You are not an ordinary man. You are a public figure. You create a circumstance, cause unrest, and now you want protection from the state machinery. This entire situation could have been solved with a simple apology,' Justice M Nagaprasanna said during last week's hearing on a separate plea seeking police protection for the film's release. Senior advocate Dhyan Chinappa, appearing for Haasan on June 3, maintained that the actor had expressed deep respect for Kannada and its people and had no intent to offend. 'Apology is required only if there is malice. There is no malice here,' he said. Chinappa added that Haasan's written statement to the KFCC reflected his goodwill and affection, and that he should not be compelled to apologise in a 'prescribed format.' But the high court remained unconvinced. Justice Nagaprasanna, quoting Shakespeare, said, 'Discretion is the better part of valour,' and pressed Haasan to show humility. The judge also criticised the tone of the actor's written statement, calling it a 'declaration of justification' rather than a conciliatory gesture. 'This is not an apology. There is not even a line that says, 'If I have hurt anyone's sentiments, I apologise.' Even C. Rajagopalachari made a similar remark 75 years ago and later apologised,' the judge said. The court also questioned the logic of seeking protection without making an effort to ease tensions. 'You want police protection, but are unwilling to utter one word that could calm the unrest. You are sticking to your stand because of your ego,' said Justice Nagaprasanna. The controversy has taken on political overtones, with several Kannada organisations and political commentators alleging that the backlash has been fuelled by segments of the ruling establishment. Haasan's counsel subtly hinted at this, suggesting that the opposition to the film's release may be 'aided by some support from the Karnataka government.' Granting a request for adjournment, the high court posted the matter for further hearing on June 10, while reiterating its earlier advice to Haasan: 'Even now, remember -- discretion is the better part of valour.' In its formal order, the court recorded that Haasan's remarks had 'stirred a hornet's nest' and caused 'unrest among the people of Karnataka.' It issued notices to the state government and the KFCC and reserved further directions until the next hearing.
