The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (July 28) directed the State government to ensure that the viral Kumbh Mela star is not taken out of the jurisidictional limits of Cochin city against her will and without its further orders.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, thus, effectively barred the Kerala Police from handing her over to the Madhya Pradesh Police without the Court's permission, after being informed that the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) had directed the Kerala DGP to ensure that she is handed over to the MP Police in accordance with due process of law.

NCST was acting on a complaint by a social worker alleging that the petitioner is a minor and that she had married Mohammed Farmaan, a Muslim man. It had directed that an appropriate application should be moved before the High Court for necessary orders to facilitate compliance with the Commission's directions.

Taking note of the petitioner's apprehensions, the Court observed that since she was already under its protection, she could not be handed over to any person without its permission.

"The 1st respondent [State of Kerala] is directed to instruct the jurisdictional police officers, including Commissioner of Police Cochin City, within whose jurisdiction the petitioner resides to ensure that she is not removed from the jurisdictional limits without orders of this Court and against her will until disposal of the writ petition."

"I'm directing the Commissioner of Police to ensure that she is not taken away, out of the jurisdiction of Cochin city against her will and without orders from this Court," Justice Bechu orally added.

The Court further clarified that the petitioner is granted protection till the disposal of the writ petition.

In June, the Court had passed an interim order granting police protection to the girl. However, earlier this month, the Court had vacated its interim order after being told that the police was unable to trace her.

Last week, the Court had passed a fresh order granting police protection to the star after she approached the police with a written representation requesting protection.

Today, when the matter came up, the petitioner's counsel argued that the threat to her life stemmed from attempts to transport her to her parents, contending that she had not been served with any order passed by the NCST. It was submitted that sending her back to her native place could expose her to an "honour killing."

Counsel further asserted that the petitioner was 18 years and three months old at the time of her marriage and that her original birth certificate was subsequently cancelled without her knowledge. The cancellation is already under challenge before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was submitted.

Seeking continuation of police protection, counsel alleged that the State was facilitating attempts to return the petitioner to her family despite the risks she faced.

Considering the submission, the Court recorded in its order:

"Having regard to the afore submissions, this Court is of the view that the petitioner having approached this Court and is under orders of protection, the respondents (police authorities in Kerala) shall ensure that appropriate protection is granted to the petitioner and she shall be handed over to any person without orders from this Court since this Court is prima facie of the view that there is merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner."

The Court however, also observed that effecting protection will be difficult if the petitioner remained in hiding.

Justice Bechu orally said: "How can the police provide protection if you are hiding? How will the police provide her protection?...She is probably scared. She is hiding....Petitioner shall contact the police as and when protection is needed. They are not able to identify where you are. You are hiding."

The Court then clarified in its interim order:

"It is clarified that since it is conceded that the petitioner is hiding due to the threats, as and when any emergent action is required, she shall contact the woman protection officer, who has been assigned to ensure the safety of the petitioner. On such intimation, immediate, adequate protection shall be provided to the petitioner."

The case is posted next week for further consideration.

Case No: WP(C) No. 21065 of 2026

Case Title: MB v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Counsel for the petitioner: P.S. Anishad, Limna Bhaskaran, Sreeparvathi G.V., Samuel Sabu, K.K. Preetha, Siya Ummer