Judge Tabassum Khan Faces Online Hate After Lynching Verdict

Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan, who sentenced seven men to life imprisonment in a 2022 lynching case, has been at the centre of an online hate campaign days after the verdict, with communal abuse and death threats forcing lawyers and legal bodies to warn that the attacks threaten judicial independence.Many of the abusive social media posts that followed Judge Khan’s ruling in the Sheikh Lala Nazir Ahmed lynching case were not targeted at the court’s findings, but instead at the judge’s religious identity. The online campaign contained communal slurs and death threats, prompting the Madhya Pradesh Police to register a FIR and provide additional security to the judicial officer.The backlash has been condemned by the legal fraternity as a whole with senior advocates, bar associations, politicians and civil society groups stating that intimidation of judges for delivering lawful verdicts erodes the rule of law itself.The Madhya Pradesh High Court has now stepped into the matter, taking suo motu cognisance of the threats against Judge Khan during a hearing on the safety of judicial officers in the state. Describing the issue as "a serious matter", a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh observed that such threats "directly hamper the judicial independence and fearless working of our Judicial Officers." The Bench directed the Director General of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to explain the steps taken to protect Judge Khan and identify those responsible for the threats. It also ordered that police protection for the judge continue.Between Murder and Mob Lynching: An MP Court's Unusual VerdictWhat had started as an attack on a judicial verdict soon became an attack on the judge personally. Much of the online discourse instead of debating the evidence presented at trial or the reasoning of the court, focused on the religious identity of Judge Khan, raising concerns about the communalisation of a judicial decision.Writing for LiveLaw, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde said that Judge Khan was made the target merely because she had done “the one thing the State exists to prevent” – punish a lynching. He warned that not taking decisive action would embolden future attempts to intimidate the judiciary. Not taking decisive action would tell "every future mob that a judge can be frightened into silence," he wrote. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) also raised similar concerns, saying judicial decisions should be challenged through the appellate process and “not through intimidation, vilification or threats against judges.” The association cautioned that if judges began to fear personal consequences for decisions made on the basis of law it could seriously undermine the independence and workings of district courts. It also expressed solidarity with Judge Khan and urged the authorities to ensure her safety. Lucknow-based advocate and legal expert Areeb Uddin also contended that the case required prompt action from the constitutional courts. Requesting either the High Court or the Supreme Court to act suo motu, he noted that several States had not yet completely enforced the Supreme Court's directives from the Tehseen Poonawalla ruling regarding mob lynching. He wondered why a legal conviction of vigilantes had led to such animosity, stating, "But if a court convicts vigilantes, does that lead to a community backlash?" Hazari Lal Gurjar, president of the Bar Association where Judge Khan works, also inquired why there hadn't been more substantial institutional action taken. Characterizing the mistreatment aimed at the judge as "despicable, gender-related", he questioned why contempt actions had not been started against those trying to coerce a judicial official.Political figures also commented. Congress leader Pawan Khera condemned efforts to communalise the ruling, emphasizing that the seven accused "were not found guilty due to their faith" but rather because the inquiry deemed them culpable of rioting, attempted murder, and murder.The civil rights group Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) claimed that public focus had moved from the court’s rationale and the trial evidence to the judge’s religious identity, transforming a legal decision into a community dispute.The dispute arises from Judge Khan's ruling in the 2022 lynching case of Sheikh Lala Nazir Ahmed in Madhya Pradesh. The prosecution claims that Ahmed was attacked by a crowd due to suspicions of cow smuggling. After a complete trial, Judge Khan found seven men guilty and sentenced them to life in prison for crimes such as murder, rioting, and attempted murder. The ruling itself is still open to the usual appeals process. Nevertheless, in the days after the ruling, images of the order and mentions of the judge's name started to spread extensively on social media, accompanied by hostile posts, community discussions, and threats of violence. The police later filed an FIR and increased security for Judge Khan.Madhya Pradesh Court Convicts 14 Men In Nazir Ahmad Lynching CaseAlthough Judge Tabassum Khan's ruling may be contested in a superior court via standard legal methods, legal professionals contend that personal harassment, communal violence, and threats directed at a judicial official exceed constitutional boundaries. They argue that critiques of judicial rulings are a recognized element of democracy, yet efforts to threaten judges while they fulfill their responsibilities erode public trust in the legal system and the principle of law itself.The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association said it stood "in solidarity with the learned Judge" and expressed hope that "all necessary steps will be taken to ensure her safety and to uphold the independence and dignity of every judicial officer."For many in the legal community, that concern extends beyond Judge Tabassum Khan. They argue that when judges become targets for decisions delivered in court, protecting them becomes essential not only for their personal safety but also for preserving public confidence in the justice system The increasing demands for institutional action, from prominent advocates and legal associations to civil society organizations indicate worries that the matter goes far beyond a single criminal trial. For numerous individuals within the legal community, the debate has transcended the validity of one particular ruling. They claim the broader issue is if judges nationwide can keep ruling on challenging and politically charged cases without fearing for their own safety—and if the bodies tasked with safeguarding judicial independence will act with the urgency that these attacks necessitate.

BECOME A MEMBER

MP High Court Steps In After Judge Tabassum Khan Targeted Over Lynching Verdict

After convicting seven men in a lynching case, Judge Tabassum Khan became the target of an online hate campaign.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from news and politics

Topics: Lynching judiciary Mob