In a dramatic legal episode, the Supreme Court of India has firmly dismissed a petition filed by Sultana Begum, who claimed to be a direct descendant of Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar II. The 68-year-old petitioner had sought possession of the iconic Red Fort in Delhi, asserting her rights as a legal heir. However, the case failed to impress the country’s top court. Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, heading the bench, rejected the petition with a smirk, questioning the logic and legal basis behind such a historic and ambitious demand in modern-day India.
Sultana Begum’s demand for the Red Fort was not new. In 2021, she had approached the Delhi High Court, pleading for either control over the Red Fort or suitable financial compensation, citing her lineage from the last Mughal emperor. The High Court had rejected her plea outright, calling it baseless. Unrelenting, she escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. Her hope was that the government might offer financial aid or symbolic justice. However, the apex court remained unconvinced and ultimately found her petition devoid of merit, effectively closing the door on her long-standing claim.
The courtroom witnessed a rare moment of sarcasm when Chief Justice Khanna asked, "Why only Red Fort? Why not Fatehpur Sikri? Why leave them also? Writ is completely misconceived. Dismissed," the Justice said. His rhetorical question underscored the implausibility of the claim. He noted that the demand lacked legal grounding and historical practicality, especially given the 150-year delay in filing such a case. The petition, according to the bench, was not only legally flawed but also filed too late to be seriously entertained. The judges emphasized that entertaining such claims now would set an unmanageable precedent rooted in centuries-old grievances.
Sultana Begum’s lawyer argued that her late husband, Mirza Bedar Bakht, was a descendant of the Mughal emperor and had been granted a pension by former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. After her husband’s death, she continued to receive the modest pension of ₹6,000 per month. Her lawyer cited her poor health and dire financial situation, claiming that the petition was not just about property but also about dignity and survival. Despite these emotional appeals, the court maintained that the petition was fundamentally flawed and dismissed any possibility of even allowing her to withdraw it voluntarily.
The story of Sultana Begum highlights the complexities of legacy, justice, and the passage of time. During the 1857 uprising, British forces captured the Red Fort, exiled Bahadur Shah Zafar, and took control of the Mughal dynasty’s last seat of power. Sultana Begum claimed the fort was ancestral property unlawfully seized by the British and later by the Indian government. She argued that either the Red Fort should be returned or she should be compensated. The court, however, saw the plea as legally untenable and historically impractical. The chapter has now closed—though the legacy of the Mughals endures, the fort remains with the nation.