It is most consoling and most refreshing to see that the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled In Reference (Suo Moto) Judicial Officers of the State of MP Vs The State of MP and Others in WP No. 12756 of 2016 that was pronounced just recently on July 1, 2026 while catching the bull by the horns and taking serious note of life threats issued to judicial officer – Hon’ble Ms Tabassum Khan after a lynching verdict which she delivered recently has minced absolutely just no words to make it indubitably clear that Judges cannot be intimidated for passing orders and directed top state officials to explain the steps taken against those responsible for issuing such serious life threats! It must be noted that a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Agarwal and Hon’ble Mr Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh while hearing a pending suo motu matter concerning judicial officers in the State directed the Director General of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) to personally explain the steps taken against those responsible for creating an atmosphere of fear around a judicial officer posted in Narmadapuram. It was held most explicitly by the Division Bench that such conduct strikes at the very foundation of judicial independence and the fearless functioning of courts. Very rightly so!
It is even more heartening to note that the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) most strongly condemned the threats issued to judicial officer and Additional District and Sessions Judge – Hon’ble Ms Tabassum Khan after a lynching verdict sentencing 14 men to life imprisonment for the August 2022 lynching of a Muslim man who was truck driver Sheikh Lala Nazir Ahmad who was a resident of Amaravati in Maharashtra over allegations of cattle smuggling stating that judicial orders must be challenged before appellate courts and not through intimidation or vilification of judges. It merits noting that the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur granted three days time for the filing of affidavits by the senior officials and simultaneously directed that protection be extended to judicial officer Hon’ble Ms Tabassum Khan, Additional Judge, Seonimalva to the Court of First District and Additional Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram. The Division Bench firmly noted that protection had already been provided but underscored that mere security arrangements would not be sufficient unless concrete action was taken against those allegedly issuing threats.
We need to note that judicial officer Hon’ble Ms Tabassum Khan handed the life sentence after convicting the accused of murder but found them guilty of armed rioting and attempt to murder as well. The accused men had also attacked Ahmad’s companions Sheikh Lala and Sheikh Mushtaq who survived their injuries. It must be noted that in the days following the verdict which she delivered as media reports have noted, some users on social media accused judicial officer Hon’ble Ms Tabassum Khan of deciding the case ‘on the basis of religion’, while one individual while using slurs to refer to the judicial officer threatened a “massacre” unless the convicts were released.
It definitely cannot be taken lightly that an X account called upon Hindus to ‘drive judge Khan out of the country’, though it appears to have since been deleted. A group of people had also burnt Judge Hon’ble Ms Tabassum Khan’s effigy which has to be most strongly condemned! There has to be zero tolerance for such cowardly threats against a serving Judge and those who are guilty must be all punished most strictly!
Not lagging behind, we see that even the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on July 3 most strongly condemned the threats, intimidation and online hate campaign allegedly directed at Additional District and Sessions Judge Hon’ble Ms Tabassum Khan following her judgment convicting and sentencing members of a cow vigilante group in a lynching case. In a statement that was issued by SCBA, it expressed solidarity with the judicial officer and urged the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the State Government to take immediate steps to protect her and initiate strict legal action against those responsible for issuing threats and inciting hatred. The SCBA in its statement said most explicitly that, “The Supreme Court Bar Association strongly condemns the reported threats, abusive social media campaign and acts of intimidation directed against Ms Tabassum Khan…following a judgment delivered by her in the discharge of her judicial duties.”
It cannot be lost sight of that the SCBA noted that reports indicated Judge Khan had faced threats and sustained online abuse after delivering the verdict prompting the registration of an FIR and enhancement of her security. While underscoring the paramount importance of safeguarding judicial officers, the SCBA observed that, “The district judiciary forms the backbone of India’s justice delivery system, with judges deciding thousands of sensitive civil and criminal matters every day. They deserve the assurance that the law will protect them whenever they faithfully discharge their constitutional responsibilities.” No denying or disputing it!
While reaffirming its commitment to the independence of the judiciary, the SCBA underscored that Judges must be able to discharge their duties without fear or external pressure. It stated most commendably that, “An independent judiciary is one of the cornerstones of our Constitution and any attempt to undermine it must be firmly resisted.” While calling for strict accountability, the SCBA urged the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the State Government of Madhya Pradesh to ensure a prompt, fair and effective investigation into the incident. It also sought the identification of all individuals responsible for threatening the judicial officer or spreading hatred against her and called for strict action in accordance with law.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by a Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Agarwal and Hon’ble Mr Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that, “While hearing this writ petition, it has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the High Court as well as through media reports that one of the Judicial Officers at Narmadapuram has been subjected to constant threats by certain members of the society for passing an order against one of the stakeholders. This is a serious matter.”
As we see, the Division Bench then observes in the next para of this notable judgment that, “In the morning, we had requested Advocate General to appear and assist us, but in the meanwhile, this matter has come. We have been informed that Advocate General is addressing Hon’ble Supreme Court through video conferencing.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench then states in the next para of this pragmatic judgment that, “Nonetheless, without waiting for the Advocate General, we request Smt. Janhvi Pandit, Addl. Advocate General to take notice and file personal affidavit of the Director General of Police and also that of the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) as to what steps are being taken to book the miscreants, who have created an atmosphere of fear for our Judicial Officer at Narmadapuram.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then hastens to add in the next para of this progressive judgment noting that, “We are of the opinion that such activities directly hampers the judicial independence and fearless working of our Judicial Officers.”
Further, the Division Bench then proceeds to direct and hold in the next para of this robust judgment that, “Let affidavit of the concerned Director General of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) be filed within three days.”
In addition, the Division Bench then further goes on to direct and hold in the next para of this remarkable judgment that, “In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, we direct that our Judicial Officer, namely, Smt. Tabassum Khan, Additional Judge, Seonimalva to the Court of First District and Additional Session Judge, Narmadapuram (M.P.) be extended protection by the Superintendent of Police Narmadapuram.”
Most commendably and so also most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in the next para what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “At this stage, it is informed that, that protection has been extended, but at the same time, Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram, should also inform as to what steps have been taken to book the persons who have created an atmosphere of threats to the Judicial Officer.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Division Bench notes in the next para of this rational judgment that, “Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, learned Deputy Advocate General, submits that FIR has been registered.”
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench then directs and holds in the next para of this concise judgment that, “The Superintendent of Police will file affidavit that what action has been taken against the miscreants.”
It certainly merits noting that the Division Bench then notes in the next para of this creditworthy judgment that, “Let this matter be taken up on 09.07.2026, for further hearing.”
Far most significantly, the Division Bench then mandates in the next para of this pertinent judgment directing and holding briefly and boldly that, “In the meanwhile, Director General of Police and Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home), shall file their affidavit, especially when we are of the opinion that any order passed by the Judicial Officer is subject to judicial scrutiny as per the forum provided for said scrutiny, be in the form of appeal or revision, but our judicial officer cannot be threatened merely because he or she chooses to pass a particular order and that is not of liking of the certain section of the society.”
What’s more, the Division Bench then further directs and holds in the next para of this praiseworthy judgment that, “Issue notice on I.A.No.4702/2026, I.A.No.6957/2026 and I.A.No.22611/2025.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes aptly by directing and holding in the final para of this enlightening judgment that, “Necessary steps be taken for issuance of notice.”
Author Bio
