'Misconceived': SC rejects woman's plea claiming possession of Red Fort as legal 'heir'
.
The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a
woman
's plea to reclaim the
Red Fort
, in which she claimed to be the widow of Bahadur Shah Zafar II's great-grandson. The top court termed the claim misconceived and meritless.
"The writ petition filed initially was misconceived and meritless. It cannot be entertained," CJI Sanjeev Khanna said. The CJI further said that if the arguments were considered, it would raise the question of why only the Red Fort, and not forts in Agra, Fatehpuri Sikri, and other locations.
In her petition, Sultana Begum claimed that her family was wrongfully deprived of the Red Fort after the British forcibly took possession of it following the first war of independence in 1857. She said that the then-emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar II—her ancestor and the last
Mughal
ruler—was exiled and the fort was seized unlawfully.
Arguing that she had inherited the property as his widow's descendant, she alleged that the government of India was an illegal occupant. The petition sought the return of the Red Fort or adequate compensation, including damages from 1857 to the present day, for the alleged unlawful occupation. Begum says she could not file the appeal owing to her bad health and passing away of her daughter.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here]
Esseps
Learn More
Undo
The
Delhi High Court
in December had junked the woman's plea, prompting her to go to the top court. "You have come 164 years too late," a bench of acting chief justice Vibhu Bakhru and justice Tushar Rao Gedela had remarked. She had also filed a similar plea in 2021, which was dismissed too.
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.
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.'
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Vishalgad Urs not held, yet 1,300 devotees went to fort for prayers at dargah
Kolhapur: Around 1,300 devotees visited Vishalgad to offer prayers at Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan's shrine on Sunday. The traditional four-day Urs, scheduled to begin on Sunday, was cancelled following restrictions by the state archaeology department. The Bakrid qurbani proceeded according to Bombay high court guidelines. While the Urs typically draws thousands of attendees, recent campaigns by right-wing organisations against encroachments have led to reduced attendance. The previous year's event was marred by violence over encroachment issues. The animal sacrifice ritual was conducted under strict protocols, requiring enclosed private premises. The area was surrounded by metal sheets to ensure compliance. Devotees from various regions queued early to climb to the fort, presenting identification such as Aadhaar cards for registration. The administration limited visits between 9am and 5pm, prohibiting overnight stays. All 1,300 registered visitors completed their darshan/prayers within the stipulated time. Sub-divisional officer Sameer Shingate, of the Pannala division, said: "Everyone left the fort before 5pm. Police bandobast and scrutiny will remain in place for three more days." Although the dargah trust officials proposed a modest Urs celebration, authorities implemented a complete prohibition. Kolhapur's superintendent of police Yogeshkumar Gupta said the administration has challenged the HC ruling permitting animal sacrifice at the fort in the Supreme Court. Right-wing groups opposed the HC decision, demanding the prohibition of both Urs and animal sacrifice at the historic 11th-century fort. These groups celebrated the administration's decision to ban the Urs as their success. Kolhapur: Around 1,300 devotees visited Vishalgad to offer prayers at Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan's shrine on Sunday. The traditional four-day Urs, scheduled to begin on Sunday, was cancelled following restrictions by the state archaeology department. The Bakrid qurbani proceeded according to Bombay high court guidelines. While the Urs typically draws thousands of attendees, recent campaigns by right-wing organisations against encroachments have led to reduced attendance. The previous year's event was marred by violence over encroachment issues. The animal sacrifice ritual was conducted under strict protocols, requiring enclosed private premises. The area was surrounded by metal sheets to ensure compliance. Devotees from various regions queued early to climb to the fort, presenting identification such as Aadhaar cards for registration. The administration limited visits between 9am and 5pm, prohibiting overnight stays. All 1,300 registered visitors completed their darshan/prayers within the stipulated time. Sub-divisional officer Sameer Shingate, of the Pannala division, said: "Everyone left the fort before 5pm. Police bandobast and scrutiny will remain in place for three more days." Although the dargah trust officials proposed a modest Urs celebration, authorities implemented a complete prohibition. Kolhapur's superintendent of police Yogeshkumar Gupta said the administration has challenged the HC ruling permitting animal sacrifice at the fort in the Supreme Court. Right-wing groups opposed the HC decision, demanding the prohibition of both Urs and animal sacrifice at the historic 11th-century fort. These groups celebrated the administration's decision to ban the Urs as their success.
