The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by Sultana Begum, who claims to be the widow of Mirza Mohammed Bedar Bakht, great-grandson of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, seeking possession of the Red Fort as a legal heir.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar rejected the petition, observing, “Why only Red Fort? Why not Fatehpur Sikri? Why leave them also. Writ is completely misconceived. Dismissed.”
Begum had moved the apex court in appeal against a December 13, 2024 order of the Delhi High Court’s division bench, which upheld a single judge’s decision from 2021 dismissing her claim on grounds of inordinate delay.
The single judge, in the December 20, 2021 order, had found “no justification” for the petitioner approaching the court over 150 years after the Mughal dynasty lost possession of the fort.
Also read: Verdict on upholding ED powers: SC reconstitutes 3 judges bench
In her plea, Begum claimed rightful ownership of the Red Fort as the legal inheritor of Bahadur Shah Zafar II, stating that the Government of India was “an illegal occupant” of the property. She contended that the family had been forcibly dispossessed by the British following the First War of Independence in 1857, after which Emperor Zafar was exiled and the fort taken over.
She had sought a direction to the Centre to either return possession of the Red Fort or offer adequate compensation, including damages from 1857 till the present day.
Begum also asserted that the Government of India, under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1960, recognised Mirza Muhammad Bedar Bakht as Bahadur Shah Zafar’s heir and granted him a political pension. She further submitted that she had married Bedar Bakht on 15 August 1965, and after his death on 22 May 1980, she too was granted a political pension by the government, beginning 1 August 1980.
She also referenced the government's recognition of her late husband as Bahadur Shah Zafar's heir in 1960, which included the provision of a political pension. Following his death in 1980, she began receiving this pension herself.
However, the Delhi High Court dismissed her plea, citing an "unjustifiable delay" of over 150 years in bringing the claim. The court emphasised that such historical grievances cannot override legal limitations. An appeal against this decision was also rejected due to a delay of more than two and a half years in filing, which the court deemed inadequately explained.
Follow us
