IS Recruit Nimisha Fathima's Mother Approaches Kerala High Court Again Seeking Repatriation

Hannah M Varghese

26 July 2021 11:42 AM GMT

  • IS Recruit Nimisha Fathimas Mother Approaches Kerala High Court Again Seeking Repatriation

    A plea seeking the same had been filed as a habeas corpus previously, which was dismissed by the Court.

    A second writ petition has been filed by Bindu Sampath before the Kerala High Cout seeking urgent directions to the Centre for the return and repatriation of her daughter and granddaughter detained in a Maximum Security Prison in Afghanistan. The petitioner had moved the court on a previous occasion with a habeas corpus petition seeking the same. However, this was withdrawn with the liberty...

    A second writ petition has been filed by Bindu Sampath before the Kerala High Cout seeking urgent directions to the Centre for the return and repatriation of her daughter and granddaughter detained in a Maximum Security Prison in Afghanistan. 

    The petitioner had moved the court on a previous occasion with a habeas corpus petition seeking the same. However, this was withdrawn with the liberty to file an appropriate writ petition being granted by the Court. Accordingly, in the present plea, the petitioner has only sought a writ of mandamus rather than habeas corpus.     

    The petitioner's daughter Nimisha Fathima is an Indian citizen and the mother alleged that she was taken abroad by her husband to live under the Islamic State. Upon the execution of the IS leader Aby Bakr Al Baghdadi, the petitioner's daughter surrendered to the Afghan authorities in 2019. Ever since, she has been languishing in an Afghanistan jail with her 4-year-old daughter.

    The plea states that the petitioner has been seeking the urgent intervention and aid of the concerned authorities including the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs, and even the National Human Rights Commission apart from the State in the matter.

    An Interpol Red Corner Notice was also issued in her daughter's name by then, which implies that the detaining country was bound to extradite her back to India, according to International law.

    However, although the Afghanistan government was prepared to deport Nimisha and other Indian detainees, the Indian Government reportedly refused to take back its citizens. According to the bilateral extraditing treaty, she urged that concerned Ministries were duty-bound to take necessary steps to effect the extradition of her daughter and granddaughter.

    The instance of repatriation of Nashidul Hamzafar from Afghanistan was also mentioned in the plea to support her arguments. The petitioner contended that the Centre had taken a 'much harsher approach to women and innocent children that had surrendered in comparison to that of an arrested terrorist'.   

    The plea also cited statements found on passports issued by the Republic of India  where it guarantees assistance and protection to its citizens when they are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the country. 

    Every authority the petitioner approached for the expeditious repatriation allegedly responded that they did not possess any information regarding Nimisha and that her whereabouts were unclear.

    Such inaction on part of the respondents was also alleged to be a violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of Nimisha and her minor daughter. Additionally, it was contended that the minor child was deprived of her basic right to education as well.

    The petition also guarantees that Nimisha and her daughter would not pose a threat to the security of the nation in any manner if brought back to the country. 

    "In any case, the responsibility of the State towards its citizens cannot be waived off or ignored, much less in a case involving the welfare of minor children and women. The present case is not one for setting the daughter of the petitioner at liberty upon repatriation, rather a case for seeking the return of Indian citizens to their country of origin where the process of law can take its due course," the plea reads. 

    Therefore, the primary contention in the petition is that the respondents failed to undertake due diligence to confirm or inquire into her daughter's location, despite information to that effect being available with the government and its departments.

    As such, the petitioner has sought directions to the Centre to take expeditious steps to bring her daughter and granddaughter back to India, to facilitate their repatriation and safe return to the country. 

    She has also prayed that upon repatriation, the minor child be rehabilitated with the petitioner for her effective reintegration into the society. 


    Case Title: Bindu Sampath v. Union of India & Ors. 

    Click Here To Read The Petition 



    Next Story