The Kerala High Court has issued notice to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) in a significant petition filed by the woman who became widely known as the “Kumbh Mela star.” The petitioner has approached the High Court seeking continued police protection amid an ongoing dispute concerning her age, her interfaith marriage with Mohammed Farmaan, and actions allegedly taken by authorities following a complaint made against her. The latest development took place on August 11, 2026, when Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed her request to implead the NCST and several other authorities as parties to the proceedings. The case has now been posted for further consideration on September 8, 2026.
The petition has arisen from a complicated dispute involving the petitioner’s age and her relationship and marriage with Mohammed Farmaan. The matter has attracted considerable attention because questions have been raised regarding whether the woman is a major and whether the authorities could take steps against her based on allegations that she was a minor. The petitioner maintains that her original birth certificate and Aadhaar card establish that she is an adult. According to the latest proceedings, she has sought to place these documents before the High Court as additional evidence in support of her case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the petitioner’s application to implead several authorities and persons whose presence, according to her, is necessary for effectively deciding the dispute. Apart from the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, the petitioner sought to bring the City Police Commissioner, the Director General of Police of Kerala, the Station House Officer of Thampanoor Police Station, and the Poovar Gram Panchayat into the proceedings. The Court also permitted her to produce additional documents, specifically including her original birth certificate and Aadhaar card. These documents are important because the dispute over her age is central to several of the issues raised before the Court.
The petitioner’s plea for police protection must also be understood against the backdrop of an earlier order passed by the Kerala High Court. During the previous hearing, the Court had questioned the legal authority of the NCST to direct the Director General of Police of Kerala to hand over the woman to the Madhya Pradesh Police. The direction from the Commission had reportedly been issued while it was considering a complaint made by a social worker. The High Court therefore raised a question regarding the extent of the Commission’s authority to issue such a direction, particularly when the woman was seeking protection and asserting that she was a major.
Following that earlier hearing, the Kerala High Court had directed the State Government to ensure that the petitioner was not removed from the jurisdictional limits of Kochi city or handed over to the Madhya Pradesh Police against her will unless the Court passed further orders. The Court also made it clear that she would receive protection until the disposal of the writ petition. This interim protection is an important aspect of the case because it prevents the authorities from taking steps that could potentially alter the petitioner’s circumstances before the High Court has fully examined the legal questions raised before it.
The latest application filed by the petitioner makes several serious allegations concerning the role of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. According to her impleading petition, the NCST’s intervention resulted in the inclusion of offences beyond kidnapping in the criminal case that was registered following what she describes as a “fake complaint” made by her father. She has also alleged that the Commission directed the issuance of a new birth certificate in a manner that would portray her as a minor. The petitioner contends that the NCST does not possess the legal power to issue such a direction. These allegations remain assertions made by the petitioner and are yet to be finally adjudicated by the High Court.
The petitioner has further alleged that the Commission’s actions were motivated by political interests. According to her account, the NCST initially examined the documents relating to her age and apparently found no issue with the documents that she had produced. She claims that after conducting an inquiry, the Commission returned to Madhya Pradesh and subsequently changed its position. She has attributed this alleged change to political intervention or other external pressure. The Court has not, at this stage, made any final finding regarding the truth or otherwise of these allegations. The notice to the Commission provides an opportunity for the concerned authority to place its position before the Court.
The issue of her age is particularly important because the legal consequences can be significantly different depending on whether a person is a minor or an adult. The petitioner has relied on her original birth certificate and Aadhaar card to establish that she is a major. She has specifically sought to involve the Thampanoor Station House Officer because, according to her, the officer had verified these documents. Her case is that the police verification supports her contention that she had attained majority and therefore should be treated as an adult in relation to her personal decisions, including her marriage.
The petitioner has also sought the inclusion of the Poovar Gram Panchayat as a necessary party. Her contention is that the NCST had visited the Panchayat in an official capacity while conducting an inquiry into the matter. During that inquiry, according to the petitioner, documents relating to her actual age were examined. She therefore considers the Panchayat relevant to the adjudication of the dispute because its records and the circumstances surrounding the verification may assist the High Court in determining the factual controversy surrounding her age.
The City Police Commissioner has been sought to be impleaded primarily to ensure effective police protection for the petitioner. Her request indicates that the petitioner remains concerned about her personal safety and wants the police authorities to take appropriate steps to protect her during the pendency of the litigation. The Director General of Police has also been sought to be added so that necessary directions can be issued to the subordinate police officials and, if required, relevant documents can be collected from Madhya Pradesh. Thus, the petitioner is seeking not merely a formal declaration of protection but an administrative mechanism through which that protection can be effectively implemented.
Another important aspect of the case is the petitioner’s interfaith marriage with Mohammed Farmaan. The controversy surrounding the couple has intersected with allegations concerning the woman’s age and the invocation of criminal law. The case is tagged with issues relating to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, child marriage and the Constitution of India. However, the present proceedings before the Kerala High Court are focused substantially on the petitioner’s request for protection and the legal issues arising from the actions of the authorities involved in the dispute.
The High Court’s earlier intervention is significant from the perspective of personal liberty. By directing that the petitioner should not be removed from Kochi or handed over to Madhya Pradesh against her will without further orders, the Court ensured that the situation would remain under judicial supervision. The direction is particularly important because the petitioner alleges that the NCST had sought her handover to the Madhya Pradesh Police. The Court’s interim protection therefore functions as a safeguard while the competing claims regarding her age, marriage, police action and the Commission’s authority are examined.
The decision to issue notice to the NCST also means that the Commission will now have an opportunity to respond to the allegations and explain the legal basis for its actions. The High Court’s questioning of the Commission’s power to direct the Kerala DGP to hand over the petitioner indicates that the scope of statutory authority is likely to be an important issue in the proceedings. The Court will ultimately have to consider whether the Commission acted within the powers available to it and whether its directions were legally sustainable in the circumstances of the case.
At this stage, it is important to distinguish between allegations made by the petitioner and findings made by the Court. The petitioner has alleged that the NCST acted improperly, that it changed its position after initially examining her documents, and that political intervention may have influenced subsequent actions. These allegations have not been finally established by the High Court. Similarly, the Court’s decision to issue notice does not amount to a finding against the Commission. It simply brings the Commission formally into the proceedings and allows the Court to hear its response before deciding the substantive questions.
The case is registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 21065 of 2026 and is titled MB v. State of Kerala and Anr. The petitioner is represented by advocates K.K. Preetha, P.S. Anishad, Limna Bhaskaran, Sreeparvathi G.V., Samuel Sabu and Siya Ummer. The matter has now been posted to September 8 for further consideration. The next hearing is likely to be important because the Court will have the opportunity to consider the response of the NCST and the other parties after their impleadment, along with the additional documents that the petitioner has been permitted to place on record.
The broader significance of the proceedings lies in the questions of personal liberty, protection, administrative authority and the treatment of an adult woman in circumstances involving an interfaith marriage. The case also raises questions about the limits of statutory commissions when they intervene in disputes involving police investigations and personal relationships. The High Court’s intervention demonstrates that actions taken by administrative or statutory bodies remain subject to judicial scrutiny, particularly where allegations arise concerning a person’s liberty and the authority of officials to restrict or transfer that person.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court has taken another significant step in the police protection plea filed by the woman popularly associated with the Kumbh Mela controversy. The Court has impleaded the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes along with several police and local authorities and has permitted the petitioner to submit important documents relating to her age. The Court had previously protected her from being taken outside Kochi or handed over to Madhya Pradesh Police against her will. The latest order keeps that dispute under judicial supervision while giving the concerned authorities an opportunity to respond. With the matter now listed for September 8, the Court is expected to further examine the competing claims concerning the petitioner’s age, her marriage, police protection, and the authority exercised by the NCST. Until the Court reaches a final decision, the allegations made by the parties remain subject to judicial determination.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.