IS Recruit Nimisha Fathima's Mother Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Her Repatriation From Afghanistan

The petition filed by Nimisha's mother, K Bindu, alleges that Nimisha was systematically persuaded and radicalized to move to Afghanistan and live under the Islamic State by her husband. It is stated that Nimisha's husband fought for the Islamic State without her knowledge, and was killed in an attack later on.

The petitioner's husband, Nimisha's step father, had filed a missing person report in 2015 as soon they could not establish contact with her. By then, she had converted to Islam and was married. Upon inquiry, she was found and produced before the Magistrate, where she was set at liberty since she was a major above the age of 18.

When the petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition subsequently, it was found by the Court that Nimisha had married her husband voluntarily and was not held against her will.

She purportedly surrendered to the Afghanistan authorities in 2019 after the leader of the Islamic State was killed by the US Armed Forces, with a group of other Indian women and children. 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.

According to the petitioner, she found out about her daughter living under the ISIS through a news report that was published in 2016. 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 petition states that the last time she heard of the detailed widowed women who surrendered to the authorities was through a documentary released in March 2020.

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

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.

It is also submitted that in a case involving rights and wellbeing of an Indian citizen, the respondents cannot take a lackadaisical approach or half-hearted enquiries. The petitioner claims that they cannot waive off their obligations under the domestic and international law.

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.

It was also suggested that since the family of other detained women and children had not come forth for their respective repatriation, the Court may take suo moto cognizance of the matter.

The petition also guarantees that the Nimisha and her daughter would not pose a threat to the security of the nation in any manner if brought back to the country. It states that the minor child could be rehabilitated upon arrival and gradually reintegrated into the Indian society.

The petitioner has sought a directive from the Centre to take expeditious step to repatriate her daughter and produce her before the Court.

The repatriation of the child and her reconciliation with the petitioner for effective rehabilitation has also been prayed for, on the ground that she is the next of kin.

Title: Bindu K. v. Union of India & Ors