The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed that Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan be provided police protection after she allegedly faced threats and online intimidation following her decision to convict seven men in a lynching case linked to allegations of cattle smuggling.
Taking suo motu cognisance of the issue on July 1, a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh described the matter as one that strikes at the heart of judicial independence. The Bench also called for detailed explanations from the State’s senior police and home department officials regarding the measures taken to address the alleged threats.
As an interim measure, the Court ordered the Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram, to ensure immediate security for Judge Khan, who is presently serving as an Additional Judge at Seonimalva under the First District and Additional Sessions Court, Narmadapuram.
The controversy arose after Judge Khan’s June 12 verdict in the 2022 lynching case involving truck driver Nazir Ahmed. The court had sentenced seven accused to life imprisonment for the killing, which stemmed from allegations of cattle smuggling.
Following the judgment, reports emerged of Judge Khan being subjected to death threats, communal slurs, online abuse and social media campaigns questioning her impartiality on the basis of her religious identity. In response, the Madhya Pradesh Police registered an FIR against unidentified persons.
The High Court considered the issue while hearing an ongoing suo motu matter initiated in 2016 concerning the welfare and protection of judicial officers in the State.
During the proceedings, the Bench observed that information placed before it by counsel representing the High Court, along with media reports, indicated that a judicial officer had been continuously targeted for delivering a judicial order. Calling the allegations grave, the Court stressed that intimidation of judges cannot be tolerated in a constitutional democracy.
The Bench underscored that if any party is dissatisfied with a judicial decision, the proper course is to pursue statutory remedies such as appeals or revision petitions. Resorting to threats against a judge, it said, is wholly unacceptable and undermines the ability of judicial officers to discharge their duties fearlessly.
The State informed the Court that security had already been extended to Judge Khan. Even so, the Bench directed the Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram, to file an affidavit detailing the investigation and the action taken against those allegedly responsible for the threats.
Additionally, the Court sought personal affidavits from the Director General of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary of the Home Department, requiring them to explain the steps undertaken to identify and proceed against those involved in the intimidation campaign.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on July 9.
