Meet Sultana Begum, who claims to be great-granddaughter-in-law of the Mughals and owner of Red Fort-- Here's what SC says
In what sounds like a royal drama straight out of a historical soap opera, a woman recently approached the Supreme Court (SC) of India claiming that she is the great-granddaughter-in-law of the Mughals and so the rightful 'heir' of the Red Fort.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Yes, you read that right! Meet
, who says she's the great-granddaughter-in-law of Mughal emperor
, and here's how the SC responded to her claims.
On Monday, a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar dismissed her petition regarding Red Fort's ownership, calling it 'misconceived' and 'meritless', as per reports.
Sultana's lawyer passionately argued that she's related to India's 'first freedom fighter,' hoping that would sway the court. But Chief Justice Khanna remarked, 'If we accept this, why stop at Red Fort? Why not Agra or Fatehpur Sikri too?'
Sultana Begum's royal dreams crushed
This isn't the first time that Sultana Begum attempted to reclaim the Red fort.
The Delhi High Court (HC) had already rejected her petition earlier — not once but twice! First in 2021 and again in 2023, when they pointed out that she waited over 150 years to file the claim.
Her excuse? Poor health and personal tragedy with the untimely death of her daughter. However, the court said wasn't convinced and did not buy her reasons.
Why Sultana Begum claimed the Red Fort?
Sultana Begum insists that after the 1857 revolt, when the British took control and exiled the last Mughal Emperor- Bahadur Shah Zafar, the Red Fort was wrongfully snatched from her family.
She further claims that after India's independence from the British Rule in 1947, the Red Fort was illegally taken by the Government of India. And so, she considering herself as the rightful Mughal 'heir', Sultana Begum urged the court to either return the Red Fort to her or give her suitable compensation for it.
But with the Supreme Court dismissing Sultana Begum's plea to own the Red Fort, and calling it baseless, it seems her royal dreams have come to an end.
No Red Fort. No compensation. Just a royal no.
What are your views on Sultana Begum's claims? Tell us in the comments section below.
The Last Mughal Family Member Left to Struggle – Heartbreaking Story of Sultana Begum
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Ludhiana West bypoll: Arora faces criticism for forgetting name of freedom fighter
As campaigning continues for the Ludhiana West byelection that to be held on June 19, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) candidate and Rajya Sabha member Sanjeev Arora is facing strong criticism from opposition parties for not remembering the full name of freedom fighter Kartar Singh Sarabha during a public speech. The incident happened on Saturday during an AAP public meeting held in Sarabha Nagar, a prominent area in Ludhiana named after Ghadar movement hero Kartar Singh Sarabha. Shopkeepers in the area have long demanded that the local market should be renamed in his honour. During an event, in which chief minister Bhagwant Mann was also present, MP Arora in his speech referred to the revolutionary as 'Shaheed Sarabha Singh', forgetting his full name — Shaheed Kartar Singh Sarabha — who was executed by the British at just 19 and admired by Bhagat Singh. A video of the speech has gone viral, showing MP Arora struggling to recall the name and being corrected by others on stage. MP Arora then said, 'I am sure CM saab will announce it soon and Sarabha's statue has already been ordered. It will be installed soon.' Following the video, opposition leaders sharply attacked the AAP. Congress MLA Sukhpal Singh Khaira posted on X (formerly Twitter), 'This proves AAP is full of fake revolutionaries. Their candidate doesn't even know who Shaheed Kartar Singh Sarabha is. Leaders like Kejriwal and Bhagwant Mann are using our martyrs' names for politics.' The Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) also expressed outrage. Harjinder Singh Bobby Garcha, president of the Shaheed Kartar Singh Sarabha Foundation and SAD spokesperson, called it 'extremely shameful'. He said, 'How can someone who doesn't even know our martyrs protect their legacy or serve Punjab and Punjabi culture?' Garcha further warned that if MP Arora does not apologise publicly, the foundation will protest his campaign. He also claimed AAP is bringing outsiders into Punjab who have no knowledge or respect for the state's culture and history. 'This shows the real face of AAP. They are insulting Punjab's martyrs and traditions,' Garcha added.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Telangana cabinet expansion: A calculated push for social justice and electoral strategy
1 2 3 Hyderabad: In a move loaded with political messaging, the Congress govt in Telangana expanded its cabinet on Sunday by inducting only Scheduled Caste (SC) and Backward Class (BC) legislators. The decision, party leaders said, was aimed at reinforcing the govt's commitment to social justice and marginalised communities. It also aligns with the party's recent legislative efforts, including two significant bills proposing 42% reservation for BCs in education, employment, and elected bodies, and another bill enabling sub-categorisation within SCs — both of which signal the Congress's intent to cater to historically underrepresented groups. Local body polls' influence Political analysts view the timing and composition of the expansion as strategically driven by the upcoming local body elections, particularly in gram panchayats, zilla parishads, and municipalities. Keen to consolidate its support among SCs and BCs—demographically crucial segments in rural areas—the Congress high command appears to have consciously prioritised these communities in the first round of expansion. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với mức chênh lệch giá thấp nhất IC Markets Đăng ký Undo Of the six vacant cabinet berths, only three were filled, leaving room for OCs (other castes) and minority candidates in the next round. Despite growing demands for representation from Greater Hyderabad, none from the capital or Rangareddy districts were considered—reportedly due to caste balancing priorities outweighing regional representation for now. Managing caste optics Initially, the Congress leadership considered filling four of the six vacancies. However, intense lobbying, particularly from Reddy MLAs—including P Sudarshan Reddy, Komatireddy Raj Gopal Reddy, Malreddy Ranga Reddy, and Rammohan Reddy—compelled the party to defer accommodating other communities to avoid internal dissent. With four ministers, including CM Revanth Reddy, already from the Reddy community, any further inclusion risked upsetting the caste equilibrium within the cabinet. The current cabinet is carefully calibrated to reflect Telangana's diverse social fabric. It includes ministers from major communities: Velama (Jupally Krishna Rao), Kamma (Tummala Nageswara Rao), Brahmin (D Sridhar Babu), ST (Seethakka), in addition to the new SC and BC inductees. Replacing an existing minister from any of these communities to include another would risk triggering factionalism—something the party is keen to avoid at this juncture. Strategic choices The Congress also faced mounting pressure from various sub-caste groups within the SC and BC communities. Recently, five Congress MLAs from the Madiga community met AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge, general secretary (organisation) KC Venugopal, and CM Revanth Reddy, urging that at least one among them be included. While G Vivek Venkatswamy's inclusion (from the Mala SC sub-group) was already decided, the leadership responded by inducting Adluri Laxman Kumar, a Madiga leader, to maintain sub-caste balance. Similarly, Vakiti Srihari's induction addressed demands from the Mudiraj community, the numerically strongest BC group in the state. He is the only Congress MLA from this group and had reportedly received assurances from the CM during election season. In the Scheduled Tribe segment, the Lambada and Gutti Koya tribes had staked claims. Seethakka, a Gutti Koya tribal, remains the lone ST minister. Among the contenders, MLAs Balu Naik and Ramachandra Naik were in serious consideration. Ultimately, the party chose to elevate Ramachandra Naik to the post of deputy speaker, which carries cabinet rank, as a compromise. The cabinet expansion also made clear two unstated but evident policy decisions. First, the Congress refrained from including any MLCs, despite intense lobbying from aspirants like Amer Ali Khan, Addanki Dayakar, and Vijayashanti. The leadership appears intent on restricting ministerial berths to elected MLAs—at least for now. Second, the absence of a Muslim minister was notable but unsurprising. With no Muslim MLA currently in the Congress legislature party, the leadership opted not to induct any minority representative via the legislative council. That decision, however, may be revisited in the next phase of expansion. A balancing act In essence, the Congress's cabinet expansion is both a political signal and a strategic calculation—appealing to core voter bases ahead of rural local body polls while containing internal ambitions within the party. By inducting only SC and BC leaders in this round, the party has underscored its social justice plank while buying time to carefully navigate competing claims from other communities in the next phase. The balancing act is far from over, but Sunday's expansion has set the tone for how the Congress intends to manage governance and internal coalition-building in Telangana.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Democracy without dissent a contradiction: Justice Surya Kant
Democracy without dissent is a contradiction and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity, Supreme Court judge justice Surya Kant has asserted as he invoked India's constitutional ethos and the top court's role in defending civil liberties. Justice Kant, who is in line to take over as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in November this year, was speaking at the Washington Supreme Court as part of an international judicial exchange. In his address earlier this week that underscored the shared constitutional commitments of India and the United States, the judge said: 'Democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity…These are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations.' Justice Kant highlighted that the right to free speech, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the First Amendment in the US, has been 'zealously defended' by courts on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing parallels with the US Supreme Court's protection of student protest in Tinker Vs Des Moines (1969), he recalled how India's top court, much earlier, had established the primacy of expression in Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan cases in 1950, ruling against pre-censorship and vague notions of public order. 'In both countries, the judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the executive may hold,' he noted. Reaffirming the foundational nature of constitutional supremacy in both democracies, Justice Kant highlighted that the basic structure doctrine in India that asserts Parliament cannot amend away core constitutional values mirrors the American principle that 'even the majoritarian will must bow' before foundational ideals like liberty, federalism, and equality. 'These doctrines reflect a shared understanding that tampering with these principles would cause a rift so immense that it would threaten the very heart of our existence,' he warned. ALSO READ | Free speech, democracy, and the epidemic of hurt feelings Justice Kant also spotlighted India's global leadership in using public interest litigation (PIL) as a judicial tool to redress collective harm. Citing the Vishaka judgment (1997) where the Indian Supreme Court laid down workplace sexual harassment guidelines in the absence of legislation, he said: 'Though structurally distinct, both approaches reflect a shared judicial philosophy: that justice must not be confined to individual litigants but must be responsive to collective harm and systemic failure.' In contrast, he acknowledged the role of class action lawsuits in the US, such as Lois Jenson Vs Eveleth Taconite Co (1993), where female workers collectively challenged workplace abuse. Addressing the evolution of due process jurisprudence, Justice Kant recalled how the Indian Constitution initially adopted 'procedure established by law' over the American-style 'due process,' but eventually evolved the latter through judicial interpretation. 'In the seminal Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Indian Supreme Court read into the phrase the requirements of justice, fairness, and reasonableness -- effectively harmonizing our doctrine with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,' he added. Justice Kant concluded his address on a note of judicial kinship, stating: 'It is my firm belief that our countries, and our legal systems, share a kindred spirit rooted in the pursuit of justice, liberty, and the rule of law… The law must be a shield for the weak, not a sword for the powerful.'
