The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the plea of Sultana Begum, a woman claiming to be the widow of the great-grandson of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar II.
Begum sought possession of the Red Fort in Delhi, arguing that she was the legal heir to the property. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar, called the petition “misconceived” and “meritless,” refusing to entertain the case or allow the withdrawal of the plea.
“The writ petition filed initially was misconceived and meritless. It cannot be entertained,” Chief Justice Khanna stated firmly.
This decision came after Begum challenged an earlier ruling by the Delhi High Court, which had rejected her claim in December 2021.
Claim & Court’s Rejection
Sultana Begum’s legal team argued that, as a descendant of the last Mughal emperor, she had a rightful claim to the Red Fort, which had been seized by the British East India Company following the 1857 uprising. The counsel further emphasized Begum’s connection to the “first freedom fighter” of India, Bahadur Shah Zafar II, to strengthen the emotional appeal of her case.
However, Chief Justice Khanna quickly dismissed this line of reasoning, questioning why the claim should be restricted only to the Red Fort. He remarked, “If the arguments are considered, why only the Red Fort? Why not forts at Agra, Fatehpur Sikri, etc.?” This statement pointed to the broader implications of such a claim, suggesting that it would be impractical and legally unsound to selectively restore multiple Mughal properties to their descendants after centuries.
Delay In Filing The Appeal
The legal battle dates back to December 2021, when Sultana Begum first filed a petition seeking possession of the Red Fort, claiming that her ancestor, Bahadur Shah Zafar II, had been wrongfully dispossessed of his property by the British after the revolt. The petition also contended that the Indian government’s occupation of the fort was unlawful, as it was originally taken by the British more than 150 years ago.
However, the Delhi High Court’s single-judge bench rejected the petition, citing an “inordinate delay” in bringing the matter to court. Begum appealed, but a division bench of the High Court in December 2024 reaffirmed the dismissal, ruling that her appeal was barred by the statute of limitations.
“We find the said explanation inadequate, considering that the delay is of more than two-and-a-half years. The petition was also dismissed for being inordinately delayed by several decades,” the High Court stated, further emphasizing that the delay could not be condoned.
Begum had explained the delay by citing health issues and the death of her daughter, but the court found these reasons insufficient to excuse such a prolonged delay in filing.
Historical Context
The Red Fort has been a symbol of India’s colonial past since it was seized by the British following the 1857 uprising. Bahadur Shah Zafar II, the last Mughal emperor, was exiled to Rangoon, and the fort has since been under the custody of the Indian government. It is now a UNESCO World Heritage site and one of India’s most iconic landmarks.
Claims to property seized during the British era have been dismissed by courts if not pursued within a reasonable time frame, often governed by statutory limitation laws. The courts have repeatedly held that historical property disputes, especially those spanning over a century, cannot be revived without compelling reasons and timely legal action.
Court’s Final Word On The Matter
With the Court’s refusal to entertain the petition, it appears that Begum’s legal options have been exhausted. The Court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to limitation periods in property disputes and highlights the need for timely claims, particularly when national heritage and state interests are involved.
As of now, the Red Fort remains under the control of the Indian government, and there is no legal basis to revisit the matter. This ruling also underscores the judicial reluctance to entertain cases that involve decades of delay, especially when the claim lacks substantial legal grounds.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
