There will be no ban on the release of Emraan Hashmi and Yami Gautam’s film ‘Haq’. Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected the petition filed by Shah Bano’s daughter Siddiqui Begum Khan. In this petition, a demand was made to ban the release of the film.

in the petition Shah Bano had said this

In fact, Shah Bano’s daughter Siddiqui Begum had alleged that the events related to her mother Shah Bano’s life have been depicted in the film ‘Haq’ without permission and beyond the facts. He had demanded from the court that the screening of the film be banned. At the same time, advocates Hrithik Gupta and Ajay Bagadia, appearing on behalf of film producer Junglee Pictures, argued in the court that the film is based on a fictional story and its purpose is not to hurt the sentiments of any person or community.

When will Emraan Hashmi release? ‘Right’?

The court agreed with the arguments of the producers and rejected the petition. After completion of the hearing in this case on Tuesday, the court had reserved the decision, which was pronounced on Wednesday. This film of Emraan Hashmi is going to be released on 7th November. Yami Gautam has played the role of an actor’s wife in the film.

What is The story of ‘Haq’?

The story of the film depicts the period of 1980–90. When there was a lot of discussion on women’s rights and divorce laws in the country. In this, actress Yami Gautam has played the character of a Muslim woman named Shazia Bano. Whose husband Abbas Khan (Emraan Hashmi) leaves her. Abbas tries to justify his wrongdoings by taking the help of religion and marries a second time and misuses the rules of divorce. For this Shazia again goes to court.

Read this also –

Who is Gaurav Khanna? How many hit shows have you given? What is the net worth? TV superstar is at the forefront in the race for the winner of Bigg Boss 19

Jabalpur High Court of Madhya Pradesh has given strict instructions to the state government regarding the disposal of poisonous ash of Union Carbide factory. The court said that 899 tonnes of toxic ash should be taken to a place where there are no human settlements, trees, plants or water sources. The court clearly said that the steps taken by the government so far are not sufficient.

This is the second time that the High Court has given orders to the government on this subject in the last two months. The court has asked the state government to submit a report on the alternative site and take the help of international experts in this work.

Container filled with poisonous ash may break in disaster

The High Court also warned in its order that if the containment structure holding this poisonous ash breaks during any natural disaster like earthquake or heavy rainfall, it could cause another major disaster.

State government claims- poisonous ash has been kept safe

In fact, it was informed in a petition that the amount of mercury in this ash was found to be much more than the prescribed limit. In response, the state government presented an animated video to the court to show that the arrangement for storing the ashes was ‘modern and safe’, but the court was not convinced by this claim.

The court commented that the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal was once considered safe, but the gas tragedy of December 1984 proved that even a small mistake could turn into a major disaster. Therefore, now any kind of caution cannot be called ‘excessive’.

368 tons of toxic waste was burnt for 55 days

It is noteworthy that 358 tonnes of poisonous waste was lying in the Union Carbide plant of Bhopal, which was sent to the Pithampur TSDF plant in January 2025 on the orders of the High Court. It was burnt there for 55 days, producing 899 tonnes of poisonous ash. Now the court has taken a strict stance on the safe disposal of this ash. The next hearing will be on 20 November 2025.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the petition filed for organizing Urs and other religious activities at the Dargah of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Gaus in Gwalior. This petition has been filed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in which permission to organize these programs was denied. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) declared the Dargah a protected monument in 1962.

According to PTI report, Justice B. V. Nagratna and Justice R. This petition was placed in front of Mahadevan’s bench. The court issued a notice to the Center and others seeking their reply in the case. On September 19, the court said in its order on the petition, “Special permission should be issued to the defendants on interim request along with the petition.”

The petitioner has challenged the order of a block bench of the High Court, which rejected the appeal against his single judge’s order. The High Court said in the order that according to the petitioner, it is the legal successor of Hazrat Sheikh Muhammad Gaus. The petitioner told the High Court that in the Dargah, various religious and cultural programs were organized for the last 400 years, but the ASI later declared the Dargah a protected monument and prohibited such activities.

The High Court said that in March 2024, the petitioner submitted an application to the ASI, requesting permission to organize Urs in the Dargah, but was refused. The High Court was told by the Center’s lawyer that ASI is protecting and maintaining the dargah of Muhammad Gaus.

The High Court said that Muhammad Gaus’s tomb is located in Gwalior and is believed to be a preserved monument by a center and was declared a National Monument in 1962. The court said that in the campus, there are the graves of musicians Tansen and Muhammad Gaus.

The High Court said, “It is actually the duty of the ASI and the district administration to save this monument of national importance with great care and strictness.” Rejecting the appeal, the High Court had said that the petitioner did not challenge the ASI’s March 2024 order, in which his application was rejected.

This time on Vijayadashami, there was a news of the recent burning of effigy of Sonam Raghuvanshi, accused of Indore’s famous murder, on which a directive has been issued by the MP High Court. The court has directed the state administration that Sonam Raghuvanshi’s effigy should not be allowed to burn the effigy of Ravana on Vijayadashami.

Please tell that Sonam is accused of killing her husband during a honeymoon in Meghalaya. In this case, the High Court clarified that public derogatory action against any person is completely unacceptable.

Hearing on Sonam’s mother’s petition

Sonam’s mother had filed a petition against the local Indore organization in which she sought instructions from the court not to burn the effigy of her daughter and no “illegal or unconstitutional” action should be taken against the family.

Justice Pranay Verma said that it is clear from the pamphlets and other documents submitted in the petition that the said organization is planning to burn the effigy of Sonam on Vijayadashami on October 2, 2025. The court termed it completely unacceptable in a democratic country.

The court gave strict instructions

The bench said that even if Sonam is accused in any criminal case, it is not permission to insult any person, to burn effigy or perform derogatory performance. The court directed the state administration to ensure that no person should burn the effigy of Sonam Raghuvanshi or any other person in place of Ravana. Such action will be not only against the constitution but will also be considered a violation of the petitioner and the fundamental rights of his family.

Petitioner’s argument and message in society

Sonam’s mother said in the court that this action taken by the organization is “against all legal principles” and is a serious violation of the fundamental rights of her family. He also added that such an effigy combustion can permanently tarnish the image of his family. According to the Indian Express, the court order has sent a clear message that in democracy, no public insult will be tolerated against any person and justice will be ensured only by staying within the law.

Chhatarpur Chemistry Professor Mamta Pathak, who was found guilty in the murder of her husband Dr. Neeraj Pathak, has been sentenced. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sentenced Mamta Pathak to life imprisonment. In the 97 -page decision, the MP High Court has upheld the decision of the lower court.

This case of Mamta Pathak had become a big topic of discussion on the Internet. Mamta Pathak, who taught chemistry to children, fought her case without a lawyer.

What was the Neeraj Pathak murder case?
In the year 2022, government doctor Neeraj Pathak was murdered. It was revealed that Neeraj Pathak’s wife had been having some dispute with Mamta for a long time. After this, in 2021, Neeraj Pathak suddenly died in his house under suspicious circumstances.

In the initial investigation, the police had expressed suspicion that Neeraj Pathak died due to current. However, forensic and post -mortem reports raised questions. After some time, the investigating officers accused wife Mamta Pathak of murder.

Mamta Pathak challenged the decision of the district court
The district court had sentenced Mamta Pathak to life imprisonment on the basis of medical report and other evidence. Mamta was granted interim bail for some time so that she could take care of her son. During this, Mamta challenged the decision of the district court in Jabalpur High Court and said to fight her case herself.

In the court, Mamta Pathak presented her case very confident and said in the court that thermal and electric burn could look the same. Only the difference between the chemical analysis could be told. Hearing this answer, everyone was surprised in the court.

That’s why Mamta Pathak went viral
When the judge questioned Mamta Pathak whether he is a chemistry professor? He replied yes. Mamta Pathak’s scientific argument, patience even under pressure and the ability to break even during the murder case made her viral on the Internet. The clip of the hearing became very viral on social media.

Brahmin priests in temples: The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while taking a serious stand on a public interest litigation filed on the appointments of Brahmin priests in temples controlled by the state government, has issued notice to various departments of the state government and directed to file replies within 4 weeks. This petition was filed by the Azad Employees Organization (Ajax), in which the constitutional validity of the appointment process of priests in temples has been challenged.

What is the case of petition?

Ajax has alleged in its petition that only Brahmin caste persons are being appointed as priests in more than 350 temples controlled by the Madhya Pradesh government. It has been said in the petition that these temples are built on the land of the state government and these temples are being operated completely by the Department of Spirituality. The priests are also provided salaries from the government.

On behalf of the petitioner, senior advocates Rameshwar Singh Thakur and Pushpendra Shah said that this appointment policy violates Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Advocates argued that when people of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (OBC) are also included in Hindu society, only appointing Brahmins as priests promotes social and constitutional inequality.

Question on temple bill 2019

The petition, especially in the year 2019, has been challenged by the Temple Bill 2019 passed by the Department of Spirituality. The petitioner says that through this bill, the state government established control of religious institutions and provision was made to appoint a salaried priest. However, information about this law was not given to the general public.

State government objection

On behalf of the state government, Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthi questioned the validity of the petition and said that Ajax is an employee organization, which does not have the legal right to file such a petition. He argued that the tradition of worship in temples has been going on for centuries and the state government has not had a direct role in it.

High court comments and next hearing

A division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain while hearing the petition said that the matter is related to the right to equality provided by the Constitution and the government will have to give a clear answer to this.

The court has issued notices to the Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary (General Administration), Religious Trust and Religion Department, Ministry of Social Justice and Public Works Department. The court has directed all the concerned departments to file a reply in this matter within four weeks. The next hearing date will be fixed soon by the court.

Also read: CM Mohan Yadav said in BJP’s tricolor journey, ‘People of all society have widespread participation’