Back
Grants Fresh Police Protection to Viral Kumbh Mela Star Over Hate Campaigns
The stepped in on Tuesday to secure the safety of the young woman who shot to nationwide fame as the ‘viral Kumbh Mela star’, passing a fresh order for police protection after she reported a wave of hate campaigns and threats following her interfaith marriage. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while disposing of the , the Station House Officer (SHO) within whose jurisdiction she now resides and directed the officer to provide adequate protection, noting it could be extended through a female officer.
The ruling marks the latest turn in a cascade of legal battles surrounding the woman, identified as MB in court records, whose marriage to co‑star Mohammed Farmaan sparked criminal complaints, allegations of forged documents and parallel litigation in two states.
A Star’s Plea for Safety
MB first approached the in June, alleging that hate campaigns were being propagated against her on mainstream media and online platforms after her marriage to Farmaan, a Muslim man. She submitted that photographs of the couple were burnt and beaten with slippers during street agitations and that she had received threatening messages from unknown numbers. The court had then passed an granting her police protection.
However, earlier this month that was after the police informed the court that they could not trace the petitioner. MB’s counsel told the court on Tuesday that she had since approached the local police with a representation seeking protection. The government pleader, however, pointed out that the woman was no longer residing within the jurisdiction of the SHO originally , but confirmed that she had been given the contact details of a female Assistant Sub‑Inspector to whom an urgent request for protection could be made.
Court’s Swift Intervention
Recognising the immediate need for security regardless of jurisdiction, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas took the rare step of adding the SHO of the area where MB now resides as an additional . The court then directed the newly officer to provide adequate police protection. “He can do it through your female officer,” Justice Bechu orally observed, underlining the need for sensitivity in the enforcement of the order.
This proactive approach ensured that the petitioner would not be left in a protection vacuum merely because she had relocated. The order effectively bridges the gap between a interim arrangement and a fresh, enforceable mandate, keeping the focus on the .
Controversies Unfold: Interfaith Marriage and Criminal Allegations
MB became a household name after videos of her selling rudraksha garlands at the Maha Kumbh Mela went viral on social media. She later travelled to Kerala for a film shoot and married Farmaan, a co‑star. The marriage immediately drew public backlash. Her father filed a (FIR) with the Madhya Pradesh police accusing Farmaan of abduction and asserting that MB was a minor at the time of the marriage. The FIR included offences under the and the .
The couple, however, countered that the birth certificate relied upon to criminalise their marriage had been forged. They alleged the document was manipulated specifically to portray their lawful interfaith union as a case of child marriage. This allegation eventually led the to grant them , acknowledging the dispute over the authenticity of the age records.
Parallel Legal Battles in Madhya Pradesh
While the dealt with the protection aspect, the couple were simultaneously fighting the criminal charges in Madhya Pradesh. Farmaan had initially approached the for , which was granted for one month to allow him to seek regular bail before the courts in Madhya Pradesh. However, the jurisdictional rejected his application. When he moved the again for an extension of the interim bail to approach the , the Kerala bench declined to grant further relief.
It was the that eventually provided the couple a breather. After they pointed out the apparent manipulation in MB’s birth certificate, the bench granted , thereby staying the against Farmaan and implicitly questioning the foundation of the criminal case.
Legal Implications and the Right to Protection
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas’s order underscores the robust role of writ courts in securing immediate protection for individuals facing credible threats, especially where hate campaigns with communal undertones are involved. By impleading the jurisdictional SHO, the court signalled that procedural technicalities—such as a change of residence—cannot be allowed to defeat a person’s fundamental right to safety.
The direction to use a female officer for enforcement also highlights the court’s awareness of the gender-sensitive dimensions of the case. For lawyers, the order reaffirms that the High Court’s under can be invoked to direct police protection even when no criminal proceeding is pending, whenever a threat to life or liberty is made out.
The parallel developments in Madhya Pradesh raise consequential questions about the interplay between the POCSO Act and interfaith marriages, especially when the minority of one party is contested on the basis of documents allegedly fabricated to attract stringent penal provisions. The ’s recognises that a charge under the POCSO Act cannot be allowed to stand merely on a questionable birth certificate; it requires a genuine factual foundation.
A Complex Interplay of Law and Public Sentiment
The journey of the Kumbh Mela star from internet celebrity to a litigant seeking routine police protection illustrates how swiftly public adulation can turn into targeted hatred when personal choices deviate from social expectations. The ’s fresh order ensures that she is not left defenceless while the more complicated criminal and family disputes grind through multiple judicial forums. For the legal community, the case serves as a reminder that the first and most immediate duty of the court is to protect life and liberty, leaving the determination of guilt or innocence to the ordinary process of trial.
As the couple continues to contest the FIR and the authenticity of the birth certificate, the judiciary’s calibrated response—swift protective orders in one state and in another—reflects a measured balance between the demands of criminal investigation and the preservation of fundamental rights in a hyper‑visible, polarised case.
