You should understand what poet Ahmed Faraz stood for: Delhi High Court to makers of film Faraaz on 2016 Dhaka terror attack

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday asked filmmaker Hansal Mehta and producers of his upcoming movie titled Faraaz to sit with the mothers of two victims of the 2016 Dhaka terror attack who moved court against the release of the film and resolve their disputes. .The movie is based on a terror attack which took place in Dhaka, Bangladesh in 2016. The plea of the mothers of two victims challenging the release of the film was rejected by a single-judge in October, prompting them to file an appeal.While hearing the appeal, a Division Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Talwant Singh said that if the directors are naming a movie Faraaz, they should understand what Pakistani Urdu poet Ahmed Faraz stood for, and therefore, try to resolve the dispute. "If you are naming the movie Faraaz, then you should know what Ahmed Faraaz stood for. If you wish to be sensitive about the sentiments of a mother, then talk to her," the Bench remarked. Justice Mridul then recited a couplet by Ahmed Faraz which read: "Shikva-e-zulmat-e-shab se to kahīñ behtar thā apne hisse kī koī shama jalāte jaate; is kī vo jaane use pās-e-vafā thā ki na thā tum 'farāz' apnī taraf se to nibhāte jaate."[Rather than complaining about the darkness of night, you could have lit lamps; Only they know whether they were honest in love or not, at least you, Faraz, should have been true.].Appearing for the mothers, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal argued that one of the primary aspects is privacy of the deceased and their family members, and that the producers have approached the issue with total insenstivity. "They did not even come to the family. That’s been their approach. The learned single-judge holds that since the girls are deceased there can be no right to privacy as regards their lives...That cannot be the approach. The question is whether the parents will have the right to privacy in relation to the lives of their daughters," Sibal said. .The Bench, however, said that it would not injunct the release of the movie since all the details are already in the public domain.Justice Mridul added that such dastardly attacks have been captured on celluloid in the past."People like sensational movies. People like movies based on true stories. What can you do?... Not a single holocaust that man has ever experienced hasn’t been put on celluloid. What do you do?" the judge remarked.The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment on the 1978 political satire titled Kissa Kursi Ka, which was based on the politics of Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay Gandhi."Look at the judgment in Kissa Kursi Ka. What did the Supreme Court say then? The subject of that film was a Prime Minister."Sibal responded that cases where public figures are involved have to be dealt with differently..Advocate Shyel Trehan, appearing for the respondents, said that they are open to the suggestion to sit with the petitioners and try to find a solution..The Court said that the law does not permit it to injunct the release of the movie, but it can always ask the producers to be sensitive and not to profit out of someone's misery.It then listed the case for further consideration on January 24.