The Enduring Shadow of 'Enemy Property': A Question of Inheritance and Identity

The recent setback for actor Saif Ali Khan in the long-standing dispute over his ancestral properties in Bhopal has once again cast a harsh spotlight on the complex and often unforgiving jurisprudence of 'enemy property' in India.

- DR. DEEVANSHU SHRIVASTAVA

The case, winding its way through the courts for decades, serves as a poignant illustration of how a law, born out of the crucible of war, continues to cast a long and contentious shadow over the lives of Indian citizens, raising fundamental questions about inheritance, identity, and the very nature of justice.

At the heart of this legal quagmire is the Enemy Property Act, 1968. Enacted in the aftermath of the 1965 Indo-Pak war, the legislation empowered the government to take control of properties belonging to individuals who had migrated to Pakistan and China.

The underlying principle was to prevent assets from being used by or benefiting a nation at war with India. A Custodian of Enemy Property was appointed to manage these assets, which were to be held in trust.

However, the journey of this law has been far from straightforward. The most significant and controversial turn came with the 2017 amendment to the Act.

This amendment, introduced with retrospective effect, fundamentally altered the landscape of enemy property jurisprudence. It expanded the definition of an "enemy" to include the legal heirs of those who had migrated, even if those heirs were Indian citizens by birth and had never held any allegiance to the 'enemy' nation.