The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of threats issued against Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan following her verdict in a 2022 lynching case. Judge Khan had convicted and sentenced several individuals to life imprisonment for the mob killing of a truck driver in Barakhar village. The threats, including communal abuse and online intimidation, emerged after the verdict, prompting the court to intervene and direct authorities to ensure her protection.
According to The Indian Express, the High Court observed that such threats directly hamper judicial independence and the fearless functioning of judicial officers. The division bench, comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh, ordered the Director General of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to submit affidavits detailing the steps taken to identify and prosecute those responsible for the threats.
As reported by Siasat, the court emphasised that judicial orders are subject to scrutiny only through appellate or revisional forums, and judges cannot be threatened for decisions that may not align with certain sections of society. The bench directed that police protection for Judge Khan, already in place, be continued and enhanced as necessary.
On 12 June 2026, Judge Tabassum Khan convicted 14 individuals and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the lynching of Sheikh Lala Nazir Ahmed, who was attacked while transporting cattle. Coverage revealed that following the verdict, videos containing death threats and communal slurs circulated widely on social media, and effigies of the judge were burnt during protests by groups identifying as cow protection organisations.
Police in Seoni Malwa registered a first information report against unidentified individuals under provisions related to promoting enmity and deliberate insult to religious feelings. Officials stated that efforts are ongoing to identify those responsible for the threats, with the Superintendent of Police directed to file an affidavit on the actions taken.
"We are of the opinion that such activities directly hamper the judicial independence and fearless working of our judicial officers," the High Court bench stated, underlining the seriousness of the matter.
The court also instructed the Additional Advocate General to file personal affidavits from the Director General of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), outlining the measures being implemented to address the threats. Analysis showed that the court’s interim order mandates continued police protection and demands accountability from senior officials.
Judge Khan’s verdict was based on medical and forensic evidence, as well as the recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothing, despite two key witnesses turning hostile during the trial. As details emerged , the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association condemned the threats and emphasised that judicial orders must be challenged only through legal channels, not through intimidation or vilification.
The High Court’s intervention comes amid heightened concerns about the safety and independence of judicial officers in sensitive cases. Folowing reports , the bench reiterated that any attempt to threaten or intimidate judges undermines the rule of law and the functioning of the judiciary.
"If judges are made to fear personal consequences for decisions rendered in accordance with law, it can have a serious negative impact on the independence and functioning of the district courts," the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association stated.
Police protection for Judge Khan remains in effect as investigations continue. Ongoing efforts are focused on tracking down those responsible for the threats, with authorities utilising various investigative units to ensure accountability and judicial safety.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.