Latest news with #Najeeb
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court adjourns order on CBI report in JNU student disappearance
A city court on Thursday adjourned its order on whether to accept the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) closure report in the disappearance of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Najeeb Ahmed, pushing the long-awaited verdict to June 30. The case, which has remained unsolved for nearly nine years, centres on the disappearance of 27-year-old Najeeb, an MSc Biotechnology student who went missing from his hostel on October 15, 2016, a day after a scuffle with students affiliated to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP). His mother, Fatima Nafees, has since challenged CBI's 2018 closure report and demanded a fresh investigation. Fatima, 56, filed a protest petition in 2019, alleging serious lapses in the CBI's probe and calling into question the agency's conclusions that Najeeb voluntarily left the campus due to mental health issues and could not be traced. 'I don't refer to him in the past tense. I believe he is still alive,' she told HT ahead of the earlier expected ruling. Her petition argues that CBI failed to investigate nine ABVP-linked students named in the initial complaint, ignored a possible motive behind Najeeb's disappearance, overlooked contradictions in witness testimonies, and did not adequately examine medical evidence or follow up on claims about his mental health. The case has seen multiple adjournments and a decade-long rotation of judges, delaying any legal finality. Fatima has continued her efforts to seek accountability despite health challenges, attending court hearings and holding silent marches in JNU each year to mark her son's disappearance.
India Gazette
3 days ago
- India Gazette
Delhi court renotifies JNU student Najeeb Ahmed's disappearance case for order on closure report
ANI 05 Jun 2025, 22:52 GMT+10 New Delhi [India], June 5 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday, after getting clarification from the public prosecutor, renotified the Najeeb Ahmed disappearance case for order on a closer report and protest petition. JNU student Najeeb Ahmed has been missing since October 2016. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Jyoti Maheshwari renotified the matter for order on June 30. The court said that the public prosecutor addressed the clarification on the proctorial inquiry conducted in the incident that occured on October 14, 2016 and the statement of doctors, renotified for orders on June 30. On April 7, the court was informed that Najeeb Ahmed was not treated at Safdarjung Hospital. He was advised to get a MLC prepared but he left hospital with his friend Mohd. Quasim. Investigation officer (IO) had also informed that the statement of Quasim, Najeeb's mother Fatima, his friend in Jamia and hostel warden in JNU were recorded. It was also submitted that the statement of the auto driver was also recorded by the Delhi Police and by the court. The IO had clarified that that the statement of the doctor/ medical attendant at Safdarjung Hospital was not taken, because no document pertaining to Najeeb Ahmed's visit to Safdarjung Hospital was there. It was also clarified that the statement of hostel warden who saw Najeeb going taking an auto from JNU. Najeeb Ahmed went missing from JNU in October 2016. This case was transferred to the CBI. The agency filed a closure report in 2018. His mother Fatima Nafees had challenged the closure report. Najeeb's mother Fatima Nafees had moved a protest petition against the closure report of the CBI. (ANI)
Indian Express
3 days ago
- General
- Indian Express
Missing for nine years, where is JNU student Najeeb Ahmed?
On October 15, 2016, Najeeb Ahmed, a first-year student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, went missing. The 27-year-old, an MSc student at the School of Biotechnology, had allegedly gotten into a scuffle with some ABVP members before this. Nine years on, there is still no sign of him. At the time, Najeeb's mother had moved court, which later directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to take over the case. In 2018, unable to make headway and finding no further evidence, the CBI filed a closure report. On June 5 this year, Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court is likely to decide whether it will accept or decline the report. The case had sparked massive protests outside the JNU Vice-Chancellor's office in 2016; various student wings blamed the V-C for allegedly not acting decisively in the matter. In the years since, Najeeb's mother, Fatima Naees, has made fervent appeals to find her son. The Delhi Police had filed an FIR under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person) and had also announced a reward of Rs 50,000 for any information on the student. Along with this, they had identified nine people as suspects. In November 2016, dissatisfied with the efforts of the police, Naees decided to approach the Delhi High Court with a habeas corpus writ petition seeking his production. Claiming that the police's efforts were 'slow, misdirected and subjective', she had prayed for a court-monitored SIT (Special Investigation Team) to take over the case from the Delhi Police. As part of its probe, the police had sent wireless messages to the SSPs of all districts in the country on the day Najeeb went missing. They had also uploaded his details on ZIPNET, a tool for inter-state police coordination, especially to track missing persons. It also sent four teams along various routes, including Delhi-Agra, Delhi-Bulandshahr, Ghaziabad, Moradabad and Rampur in search of him. CCTV footage from Metro stations was also examined. On December 19 and 20 that year, 560 police officers also searched 1,019 acres of the JNU campus — including academic blocks, hostel complexes, water tanks and septic tanks. All these attempts eventually turned out to be futile. Six months later, on May 16, 2017, the High Court passed the case to the CBI. The CBI's investigation could also not reach a conclusion. On October 16, 2017, the Delhi High Court pulled up the central agency, stating that it wasn't showing the intent to find Najeeb. The High Court had also directed a forensic laboratory in Chandigarh to examine the mobile phones of the nine suspects. On May 11, 2018, the CBI had told the court that it found no evidence that there was any crime committed against Najeeb based on the findings of the lab. Three months later, the agency told the High Court that it had decided to file a closure report in the case since it had probed all angles and had still found nothing against the suspects. Of the nine phones sent to the lab in Chandigarh, two could not be analysed since they were not in a working condition. On April 2019, a Delhi court directed the CBI to give copies of all statements and documents related to the closure report to Najeeb's mother within two weeks. Naees had filed a protest petition against the CBI's closure report. The CBI's investigation involved questioning 26 persons, including JNU officials, staff, friends, and colleagues. It also involved examining mortuaries in 12 cities, along with scrutinising railway records for a year. As per the 8th status report filed by the central probe agency, Interpol was also roped in to help find Najeeb. The reward for finding him was also raised to Rs 10 lakh. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, who represented Naees in the High Court, had argued that the CBI wasted a lot of time in tracing Najeeb. 'The one thing they should have done is custodial interrogation of the accused persons. Najeeb was getting threats a day before he disappeared. The fact that they failed to do this shows a complete mockery of the system,' he told The Indian Express. In an order dated October 8, 2018, Delhi High Court Justice S Muralidhar had said: 'In the present case, however, this court did accept the plea of the petitioner at the first instance and directed the investigation to be undertaken by the CBI. This court is, however, for reasons discussed hereafter, not persuaded that the CBI is tardy and slow in the investigation or that it has not taken steps that are required to be taken in the matter.' Recently, the CBI told Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Maheshwari that they couldn't record the statement of the doctor at Safdarjung Hospital, where Najeeb was allegedly rushed after being injured in the scuffle, because no document pertaining to his visit existed. The CBI also alleged that he went back to the hostel without getting a medico-legal case report prepared. Meanwhile, in an order dated April 7, 2025, the court referred to Najeeb as 'deceased' instead of 'injured'. A few days later, they called it an 'inadvertent error' in a submission in court. Till date, no one knows where Najeeb is.
The Hindu
23-04-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Kerala boasts highest number of star hotels in country
Though Kerala is ranked well below many north Indian States in terms of foreign tourist arrivals (FTAs) and foreign tourist visits, the tiny south Indian State continues to rank top in the country in terms of the highest number of classified five star, four star and three star hotels. According to the number of five, four and three star hotels classified since 2019 by the Ministry of Tourism, Kerala has 94 five star, 420 four star and 601 three star hotels, well ahead of Maharashtra, Delhi and other States with metro cities. Maharashtra, which comes second, has 86 five star, 36 four star and 69 three star hotels. The hotels are given a rating, from one to three; four and five star with or without alcohol; and five star deluxe through the NIDHI+ portal of the Ministry of Tourism. 95.2 lakh foreign tourists According to the ministry, 95.2 lakh foreign tourists reached the country in 2023. Maharashtra had the highest number of foreign tourist visits at 33.87 lakh, followed by Gujarat (28.06 lakh), West Bengal (27.06 lakh), and Delhi (18.28 lakh) whereas Kerala had witnessed only 6.49 lakh foreign tourist visits during the year. The reasons According to E.M. Najeeb, senior vice-president of the Indian Association of Tour Operators (IATO), though Kerala is a popular tourist destination in the country, there is no direct connection between tourist arrivals and star hotels in the State. At first, the excise policy of the State during the United Democratic Front (UDF) restricted bar licence to only five-star hotels. Subsequently, a lot of three-star and four-star hotels upgraded themselves to five-star status to get the bar licence. The Left Democratic Front (LDF) government that succeeded the UDF allowed the opening of bars in three-star and four-star hotels. This policy decision had played a pivotal role in the increase in the number of classified star hotels in Kerala, said Mr. Najeeb. The high NRI remittance received in Kerala had resulted in many expat entrepreneurs investing in the hospitality sector, said James Kodianthara, Chief Executive Office of Concord Exotic Voyages, one of the leading inbound tour operators in the country. Around 30 years ago, there were only a few five star hotels in Kerala. The aggressive promotion of Kerala as a popular tourist destination across the country and on international platforms also helped attract investments to the hospitality industry in the State, said Shilendran Mohan, vice-president (Sales), CGH Earth Hotels.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Drama Between Between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Foundation and the Muslim Women's Coalition, Explained
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Archewell Foundation has pulled funding from the Milwaukee Muslim Women's Coalition (MMWC), citing their policy on hate speech. The decision came following an OpEd that Janan Najeeb, the coalition's founder and executive director, authored last February, featured the phrase 'from the river to the sea' extensively and after Najeeb spoke at an event this past fall at which a mural featured the Star of David combined with a swastika. 'Our funding and grant support extends to individuals and organizations of all walks of life with varying political views, cultural beliefs, ideologies, and identifications. We do not discriminate. We believe change comes from building bridges. We welcome all,' Executive Directors James Holt and Shauna Nep wrote in a statement shared on Archewell's website. They added, 'We do not, however, tolerate any form of hate speech, including hate-fueled symbols, language, or imagery—no matter the community it targets. For us, association with the blending of the Star of David with a swastika, is impossible to accept. Additionally, language that calls for the destruction of others, whether explicitly or implicitly, crosses a line. It is not aligned with our values: we are pro-humanity, pro-love, pro-peace, pro-equality.' The Archewell Foundation had awarded the group a grant as part of its Welcome Project, supporting women resettled from Afghanistan. The MMWC had hosted an Afghan Women's Sewing Circle and Support Group with the funding. In response to the decision (the coalition shared the letter that Archewell sent them as part of an online fundraiser), MMWC's Najeeb wrote that she was deeply disappointed. 'To suggest the piece constitutes hate speech or propaganda is, at best, a profound misinterpretation,' she wrote of her OpEd. Later in her statement, she writes, 'There is painful irony in your decision to withdraw support from Afghan women, many of them war survivors, because the leader of a women's organization dared to speak out against the creation of more war survivors. The people enduring the crisis in Gaza are exactly those your mission claims to support. How can it be against your mission and values to advocate for their safety and dignity?' She added, 'Silencing women of color who speak out against injustice perpetuates the very harm your foundation purports to address,' and asks them to retract their 'defamatory statements and issue a public apology.' Harry and Meghan have yet to personally comment on the controversy. You Might Also Like 12 Weekend Getaway Spas For Every Type of Occasion 13 Beauty Tools to Up Your At-Home Facial Game
