New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by a woman, who claimed to be a descendant of Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar and demanded possession of the Red Fort citing her lineage. A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjeev Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar termed the petition as completely wrong and said, "Why only the Red Fort? Why not Fatehpur Sikri? Why should they also be left out? The writ is completely wrong. It is dismissed."
The Red Fort is a 17th-century Mughal fort. It is one of the most special historical buildings in Delhi. There is a demand to hand over this fort to the widow of the great-grandson of Bahadur Shah Zafar II. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna questioned Sultana Begum's petition. The Chief Justice expressed surprise and said, "Do you want to debate this?"
Sultana Begum lives near Howrah, Kolkata. She had sought ownership of the Red Fort. She said that she is a direct descendant of the real owners, i.e. the Mughal emperors. The British took over the Red Fort from the Mughals after the First War of Independence of 1857. Bahadur Shah Zafar II supported the rebellion against the colonial rulers. Therefore, he was expelled from the country and his land and property were confiscated.
Sultana Begum had also sought financial assistance from the government. She said that if the government gives her money, she will give up her claim. This is not the first time she has made such a demand. In 2021, she also filed an application in the Delhi High Court. Then Sultana Begum had said that in 1960 the government had accepted the claim of her (now late) husband Bedar Bakht. Bedar Bakht was a descendant and heir of Bahadur Shah Zafar II.
After this, the government started giving him pension. After his death in 1980, this pension started being given to Sultana Begum. Sultana Begum said that this pension is not enough for her needs. She alleged that the government has 'illegally' occupied the Red Fort. She also said that the government is not giving her adequate compensation. This is not right according to her property and historical importance. Sultana Begum said that this is a violation of her fundamental rights and Article 300A of the Constitution. Article 300A says that any person can be deprived of his property only according to the law. However, the Delhi High Court rejected her petition. Three years later, she appealed against that decision. But it was rejected again.
