Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, May 5: After the High Court, she has now approached the Supreme Court for the possession of Red Fort, the 17th century Mughal red sandstone fortress that is one of Delhi’s most iconic historical monuments and nation’s pride.
No, it is not a case of a mentally retarded, but the plea was filed by Sultana Begum, the ‘widow of the great-grandson of the last Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar II. Alternatively, she demanded financial assistance from the government to give up her claim.
The Supreme Court expectedly junked the plea on Monday. The Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, also retorted, “Why only Red Fort? Why not Fatehpur Sikri (the capital of the Mughal empire during Akbar’s reign in the late 16th century), Taj Mahal (famously commissioned by Shah Jahan in the 17th)?” “You want to argue this…” a bemused Chief Justice said as he junked the ‘misconceived’ plea.
Sultana Begum, who lives in Howrah, an outskirts of Kolkata, had demanded possession of the Red Fort on grounds she was a direct descendant of the original owners, i.e., the Mughal emperors. The Red Fort had been taken away from the Mughals by the British administration after the First War of Independence in 1857, after which Bahadur Shah Zafar II, who had supported the first rebellions against the colonial rulers, was exiled and his lands and properties confiscated.
In 2021, Sultana Begum had approached the Delhi High Court with the same plea. She had pointed out that in 1960 the Central government had confirmed the claim of her (now deceased) husband, Bedar Bakht as the descendant and heir of Bahadur Shah Zafar II. The government subsequently began paying him a pension that transferred to her in 1980, upon his death. This pension, she had argued, was insufficient for her needs.
She alleged the government had taken ‘illegal’ possession of the Red Fort and its unwillingness to provide adequate compensation – commensurate with its property and historical value – was a direct violation of her fundamental rights and rights under Article 300A of the Constitution, which says no person shall be deprived of their lawful property, except by the authority of law.
However, this plea was junked by the Delhi High Court. Three years later she appealed against that verdict, and it was rejected again. It was rejected on grounds that the appeal was filed too late after the original verdict, overruling Sultana Begum’s plea; she had said her illiteracy and ill health had led to the delays.
Meanwhile, the CJI Khanna on Monday bowed out of the Waqf law case, with four working days left in his tenure ahead of retirement on May 13, saying he did not want to reserve or pass any interim orders. The CJI said the course of the litigation challenging the Waqf Amendment Act would be steered by his successor and Chief Justice of India designate, Justice B.R. Gavai.
The CJI, accompanied by Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan, listed the case on May 15, two days after his retirement. The listing would also align the challenge to the Waqf law as one of the major cases to come up before the new Chief Justice of India. Justice Gavai assumes office as top judge on May 14 for a six-month tenure till November.
On April 17, the last crucial day of hearing in the case, the Chief Justice’s Bench had avoided passing an interim order to stay the implementation of the 2025 amendments. Instead, it had to rest content with recording the Government’s statement that “till the next date of hearing [May 5. 2025], no Waqf, including a Waqf by user, whether declared by way of notification or by way of registration, shall be de-notified, nor will their character or status be changed”.
Similarly, the Government had assured that appointments of non-Muslims would not be made to the Central Waqf Council or the State Waqf Boards under the 2025 Act. The court had earlier listed the case on May 5 for a “preliminary hearing” and interim orders, if required.
However, as soon as the Bench assembled post-lunch, the CJI said he did not want to hear and reserve arguments for an interim stay of the 2025 Act. He said both sides had raised substantial arguments on law, especially regarding the registration of Waqfs, which needed to be heard elaborately. Since he did not have enough time left in his tenure, he preferred to bow out of the case for the sake of a continuous hearing.
