'Dangal' child star Suhani Bhatnagar passes away at 19
New Delhi, Feb 17: Suhani Bhatnagar, who played young Babita Phogat in Aamir Khan-starrer wresting drama "Dangal", has died at the age of 19.
"She died at AIIMS yesterday. She was 19," a close relative of the actor told PTI, confirming her death.
He did not elaborate on what led to the young actor's death but media reports suggested she suffered medical complications after a leg fracture and was later admitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
"She was admitted on February 7 and passed away on February 16," a source at the hospital said.
The Faridabad-born actor became a prominent face after appearing in the 2016 biographical drama about a wrestler who mentors his two daughters to success.
Zaira Wasim played young Geeta while Bhatnagar portrayed the role of Babita. The grown-up versions of the characters were played by Fatima Sana Shaikh and Sanya Malhotra. Aamir Khan played the role of their father, Mahavir Phogat.
In a social media post, Khan's production house mourned Bhatnagar's death.
"We are deeply saddened to hear about our Suhani passing away. Our heartfelt condolences to her mother Poojaji and the entire family. Such a talented young girl, such a team player, 'Dangal' would have been incomplete without Suhani.
"Suhani, you will always remain a star in our hearts. May you rest in peace," Aamir Khan Productions said in the post on X.
The film's director Nitesh Tiwari also mourned the death.
"Suhani's passing away is absolutely shocking and heartbreaking. She was such a happy soul, so full of life. My deepest condolences to her family," he said in a statement.
Suhani had taken a break from acting to complete her studies.
We are deeply saddened to hear about our Suhani passing away.
— Aamir Khan Productions (@AKPPL_Official) February 17, 2024
Our heartfelt condolences to her mother Poojaji, and the entire family šš½
Such a talented young girl, such a team player, Dangal would have been incomplete without Suhani.
Suhani, you will always remain a star in…
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Kātaka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
