For nearly nine years, Fatima Nafees has lived with one question: where is her son Najeeb Ahmed? On Thursday, the 56-year-old mother from Budaun, Uttar Pradesh, will find out whether the courts give her hope a chance or bring it to a halt.
A Delhi court will pronounce its order on whether to accept the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) closure report in Najeeb Ahmed’s disappearance, or to direct a fresh investigation. Ahmed, a 27-year-old student of MSc Biotechnology at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), vanished in October 2016 after a scuffle with fellow students.
Since 2019, Fatima has contested CBI’s decision to close the case, filing a detailed protest petition before the Rouse Avenue court and flagging what she alleged are serious lapses in the investigation.
In its 2018 closure report, the CBI claimed that Ahmed left campus voluntarily due to mental health issues and could not be traced. But Fatima never accepted that version. “As of today, Najeeb would be 35. I don’t refer to him in the past tense. I believe he is still alive,” she told HT ahead of the ruling.
Her petition challenges the agency’s conclusions on five grounds, urging the court to reject the closure and direct further inquiry.
At a hearing earlier this year, additional chief metropolitan magistrate Jyoti Maheshwari summoned CBI’s investigating officer to clarify aspects of the probe. The judge also noted that arguments on Fatima’s petition had been pending since August 2020, delayed by repeated adjournments and changes in presiding judges—ten in total. “I could not attend every hearing due to age and health issues,” Fatima said. “But I came when my lawyer asked me to. I want to ask the judge—if your child went missing and no one could say why, how would you feel?”
The disappearance
Ahmed disappeared from JNU’s Mahi-Mandavi hostel on October 15, 2016, a day after a physical altercation with a group of students linked to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Then JNU Students’ Union president Mohit Pandey submitted a complaint naming nine ABVP-linked students and alleging they had threatened Najeeb.
Delhi Police registered a case of kidnapping under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, but found no leads. Following public outcry, then Union home minister Rajnath Singh ordered the formation of a special investigation team. The Crime Branch took over the case in November 2016, and investigators searched hospitals, railway stations, and morgues, but came up empty.
In May 2017, after Fatima moved the high court, CBI took over the case. A year and a half later, the agency filed its closure report, stating there was no evidence of foul play or abduction.
Fatima’s petition
Fatima’s petition disputes CBI’s findings on several points.
Her primary contention is that the agency failed to properly investigate the nine ABVP-linked students named in the original complaint. Cellphone data placed them on campus at the time of Najeeb’s disappearance, but none were arrested or thoroughly interrogated. CBI said no direct evidence linked them to the case.
Second, Fatima highlighted the alleged motive. Two days before he disappeared, Najeeb allegedly slapped a fellow student, triggering a violent backlash. She argues the agency ignored the possibility that this confrontation escalated.
Third, she questioned the testimony of hostel warden Arun Shrivastava, who told CBI that he saw Najeeb leave in an autorickshaw. Fatima calls this an “afterthought,” pointing out that the warden never mentioned this detail during the Delhi Police’s initial inquiry.
Fourth, Fatima alleged CBI failed to examine key medical evidence. Najeeb had been taken to Safdarjung Hospital for injuries sustained during the scuffle, but the doctor who treated him was never questioned. “This could have helped establish the extent of assault,” she said.
Lastly, she disputed CBI’s mental health theory where the agency cited medical records from VIMHANS Hospital showing Najeeb was treated for depression. She insisted that his condition was not severe enough to suggest he voluntarily disappeared. “Even if he had anxiety, that doesn’t explain why no one has seen him since,” she said.
A long vigil
Each year on October 15, Fatima travels to JNU with her elder son to light a candle and join a silent march in Najeeb’s memory. “Despite serious health issues, I make it a point to go,” she said. “I do this in the hope that someone will listen to a mother who has been asking the same question for eight years.”
Thursday’s verdict will decide whether that demand still holds legal weight.
“I still wait for him,” Fatima said. “Until my last breath, I will not stop looking.”