Supreme Court junks plea of woman claiming possession of iconic Red Fort
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected the plea of a woman, who claimed to be the widow of great-grandson of Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar-II, seeking possession of the Red Fort here on account of being the legal 'heir'.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar termed the plea as 'misconceived' and 'meritless' at the outset and refused to entertain the petition filed against the Delhi High Court order.
'The writ petition filed initially was misconceived and meritless. It cannot be entertained,' the CJI said. The bench did not allow the counsel for petitioner Sultana Begum to withdraw the plea. 'The petitioner is the family member of the first freedom fighter of the country,' the counsel said.
The CJI said if the arguments are considered then 'why only Red Fort then why not forts at Agra, Fatehpuri Sikri etc'.
A division bench of the Delhi High Court, on December 13, last year, had dismissed the appeal by Begum against the December 2021 decision of a HC single judge, noting the challenge was filed after a delay of over two-and-a-half years, which could not be condoned.
Begum said she could not file the appeal owing to her bad health and passing away of her daughter.
'We find the said explanation inadequate, considering that the delay is of more than two-and-a-half years. The petition was also dismissed (by the single judge) for being inordinately delayed by several decades. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. It is barred by limitation,' the high court had said.
On December 20, 2021, the single judge dismissed Begum's petition seeking possession of the Red Fort taken illegally by the British East India Company, saying there was no justification for the inordinate delay in approaching the court after over 150 years.
The petition claimed the family was deprived of their property by the Britishers after the first war of Independence in 1857, following which the emperor was exiled from the country and possession of the Red Fort was forcefully taken away from the Mughals.
It claimed that Begum was the owner of the Red Fort as she inherited it from her ancestor Bahadur Shah Zafar-II, who died on November 11, 1862 at the age of 82, and the government of India was an illegal occupant of the property.
The petition sought a direction to the Centre to hand over the Red Fort to the petitioner or give adequate compensation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
When Rajinikanth chose reconciliation over rhetoric with Karnataka during the 2008 'Kuselan' controversy
In 2008, ahead of the release of his film 'Kuselan,' Superstar found himself at the center of a storm over the long-standing between and . During a Tamil film industry protest in Chennai demanding the implementation of the Supreme Court's order on the water issue, Rajinikanth made strong remarks urging the Karnataka government to release water. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now His words, though echoing the sentiments of Tamil Nadu, sparked a sharp backlash in Karnataka. A ban looms over the film Pro-Kannada groups responded swiftly, calling for a ban on the release of 'Kuselan' across Karnataka. The situation escalated, and distributors in the state began to pull back, fearing violence and loss. Realizing the gravity of the situation and how it could impact his fans and the film industry, Rajinikanth decided to take a conciliatory path. He issued a public apology to the people and government of Karnataka, stating that he did not intend to hurt anyone's sentiments. The superstar steps back for peace In a televised message, Rajinikanth said, 'If my words have hurt the people of Karnataka, I sincerely apologize.' His heartfelt gesture was seen as a move to diffuse tensions and restore peace. The apology was widely circulated and helped ease the pressure around the film's release. Following this, 'Kuselan' was allowed to be released in Karnataka, although with limited screening due to lingering protests. A moment that defined the man This incident remains a key moment in Rajinikanth's political and public image, portraying him as a statesman-like figure who prioritized harmony over confrontation. His balanced response was appreciated by many, even as some in Tamil Nadu debated the need for an apology. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Nonetheless, Rajinikanth's 2008 move is still recalled today as a rare instance of a megastar navigating the political sensitivities between two states with restraint and maturity. This incident is now cited in contrast to current controversies, like 's 'Thug Life' and the Kannada language row, where no apology was issued. Rajinikanth's gesture is viewed as a diplomatic move that helped protect his film's release and maintain public goodwill.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Encroachers can't claim right to continue occupying public land: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that encroachers cannot claim a right to continue occupying public land till their rehabilitation claims are not resolved, as this would unduly impede public projects. The high court made the observation while granting liberty to the DDA to proceed with the demolition action at Bhoomiheen Camp in South Delhi's Kalkaji in accordance with law. Justice Dharmesh Sharma said the writ petitions were not only flawed due to the misjoinder of multiple parties with multiple causes of action, but also failed to meet the essential threshold provided by the Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy for being considered eligible for relocation and rehabilitation. "None of the petitioners have any legal right to continue occupying the JJ cluster incessantly, to the detriment of the public at large," the court said in its order passed on June 6. The court passed the judgment on a batch of petitions, involving around 1,200 people, seeking direction to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to suspend any further demolition activity, maintain the status quo at the site, and refrain from physically evicting the petitioners from their respective 'jhuggi jhopri' clusters. Live Events The petitioners also sought a direction to the DUSIB to conduct a proper and comprehensive survey of the affected residents and rehabilitate them in accordance with the 2015 policy. The high court said there can be no gainsaying that the petitioners have no vested right to seek rehabilitation, as it is not an absolute constitutional entitlement available to encroachers such as themselves. "The right to rehabilitation arises solely from the prevailing policy that binds them. The determination of eligibility for rehabilitation is a separate process from the removal of encroachers from public land. "Encroachers cannot claim a right to continue occupying public land pending the resolution of their rehabilitation claims under the applicable policy, as this would unduly impede public projects," it said. The court, however, allowed rehabilitation of some of them and directed the DDA to allocate the EWS category flats. The nearly three-decades-old slum cluster at Bhoomiheen Camp was home to migrants from Uttar Pradesh , Bihar, and West Bengal , among others.
The Hindu
44 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Cash discovery row: Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament
Resignation is the only option before Justice Yashwant Varma to avoid impeachment by Parliament as the government pushes for bringing a motion to remove the Allahabad High Court judge over alleged corruption. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired HC judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office." A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in house panel which investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said. A motion could be brought in either of the two Houses of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, at least 50 members have to sign the motion. In Lok sabha, 100 members have to support it. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju had last week said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by then CJI Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said. The minister said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. "As per the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. Here, a committee has already been constituted, not by Parliament. But it cannot be brushed aside" as it was constituted by the CJI, he said. Responding to questions that a committee has to be mandatorily formed under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, Rijiju said the speaker will take a decision in this regard. He said reconciling the report of the in-house panel and the one under law is a "secondary matter". The primary objective is to bring the impeachment motion. Monsoon session begins July 21 and ends August 12. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta HC judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned. Justice Varma's removal proceedings will be taken up in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. This will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building.
