The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the threats made against Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan after she sentenced seven men to life imprisonment in a case of 2022 related to the lynching of a truck driver accused of cattle smuggling on 1st July, 2026.

Police Protection Ordered:

A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh also directed that Judge Khan be given immediate police protection.

The Court said:

“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 (MP) be extended protection by the Superintendent of Police Narmadapuram.”

Background of the Case:

The matter arose after Judge Khan, on June 12, convicted seven men and sentenced them to life imprisonment for the 2022 lynching of truck driver Nazir Ahmed, who was allegedly attacked by a mob over accusations of cattle smuggling.

Threats after the Verdict:

Following the judgment, Judge Khan allegedly received death threats. She was also targeted with communal slurs, misinformation campaigns, and criticism on social media, where her impartiality was questioned because of her religious identity.

After this, the Madhya Pradesh Police registered an FIR against unidentified persons over the threats and abusive online posts.

Court Calls It Serious:

The High Court considered the issue while hearing a suo motu petition that has been pending since 2016 on the safety and protection of judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh. During the hearing, the Court was informed by counsel for the High Court and through media reports that Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan had allegedly received threats and faced intimidation after delivering a judgment in a 2022 lynching case. Instead of starting a separate suo motu case, the High Court took up the issue in the pending 2016 case itself and issued directions for her protection.

The Court observed:

“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.”

Judicial Independence:

The Bench said that such threats directly affect the independence of the judiciary.

It observed:

“We are of the opinion that such activities directly hampers the judicial independence and fearless working of our Judicial Officers.”

Orders Must Be Challenged Legally:

The Court also made it clear that if anyone is unhappy with a judicial order, the proper course is to challenge it through legal remedies such as an appeal or revision.

The Bench said:

“Our judicial officer cannot be threatened merely because he or she choses to pass a particular order and that is not of liking of the certain section of the society.”

Further Directions:

During the hearing, the State informed the Court that police protection had already been provided to Judge Khan.

Even so, the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram, to file an affidavit explaining the action taken against those allegedly responsible for issuing the threats.

The Court also directed the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) to file their personal affidavits detailing the steps taken against those involved in threatening the judicial officer.

The matter will be heard next on July 9.

Case Details: In Reference (Suo Motu) (Judicial Officers of the State of M.P.) vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 12756 of 2016)