MP HC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Against Threats To Judge Tabassum Khan

It is most consoling and most refreshing to see that the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgement 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 the Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Agarwal and the 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!

Key Highlights Of The Case

Particular	Details
Case Title	In Reference (Suo Moto): Judicial Officers of the State of MP Vs The State of MP and Others
Case Number	WP No. 12756 of 2016
Judgment Date	July 1, 2026
Court	Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bench	Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Agarwal and Hon’ble Mr Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh
Primary Issue	Threats issued to Judicial Officer Hon’ble Ms Tabassum Khan after delivering a lynching verdict

High Court Protects Judicial Independence

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 the 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. 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.

Important Directions Issued By The High Court

• Senior state officials were directed to file affidavits.
• Protection was ordered for judicial officer Hon’ble Ms Tabassum Khan.
• Authorities were asked to explain the steps taken against those issuing threats.
• The court emphasised that security alone is insufficient without concrete legal action.

Background Of The Lynching Case

We need to note that judicial officer Hon’ble Ms Tabassum Khan handed down the life sentence after convicting the accused of murder but found them guilty of armed rioting and attempted 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.

Social Media Threats And Public Reaction

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 all be punished most strictly!

Major Concerns Highlighted

• Threats issued against a serving judicial officer.
• Online hate campaign following the judgment.
• Attempts to intimidate the judiciary.
• Need for strict legal action against those responsible.

Supreme Court Bar Association Condemns Threats

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. Ms Tabassum Khan following her judgement 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 judgement delivered by her in the discharge of her judicial duties.”

SCBA Key Observations

• Strong condemnation of threats against the judicial officer.
• Solidarity expressed with the honourable Ms Tabassum Khan.
• Demand for immediate protection.
• Call for strict legal action against those responsible.
• Emphasis on safeguarding judicial independence.

District Judiciary Is The Backbone Of Justice

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!

Importance Of An Independent Judiciary

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.

Why This Issue Is Significant

Issue	Significance
Threats to Judges	Undermine judicial independence and rule of law.
Online Hate Campaigns	Create fear and intimidation against judicial officers.
Protection of Judges	Essential for fearless delivery of justice.
Legal Accountability	Necessary to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.

High Court Begins Its Judgment

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgement authored by a Division Bench comprising the Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Agarwal and the Hon'ble Mr Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh of the 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.”

Court Seeks Assistance From The State

As we see, the Division Bench then observes in the next paragraph of this notable judgement that, “In the morning, we had requested the Advocate General to appear and assist us, but in the meanwhile, this matter has come. We have been informed that the Advocate General is addressing the Hon'ble Supreme Court through video conferencing.”

Directions To File Affidavits

It is worth noting that the Division Bench then states in the next paragraph of this pragmatic judgement that, “Nonetheless, without waiting for the Advocate General, we request Smt Janhvi Pandit, Addl. Advocate General, to take notice and file a 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.”

Important Directions Issued At This Stage

• Notice issued to the Additional Advocate General.
• Personal affidavits directed by the Director General of Police.
• Affidavit directed from the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home).
• Explanation sought regarding action against those allegedly threatening the judicial officer.

Activities Hamper Judicial Independence

It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then hastens to add in the next paragraph of this progressive judgement noting that, “We are of the opinion that such activities directly hamper the judicial independence and fearless working of our judicial officers."

Court Directs Senior Officials To File Affidavits

Further, the Division Bench then proceeds to direct and hold in the next para of this robust judgement that “Let the affidavit of the concerned Director General of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) be filed within three days.”

Affidavit Directions Summary

Authority	Direction Issued
Director General of Police	File an affidavit within three days.
Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home)	File an affidavit within three days.
Purpose	Explain the action taken against persons responsible for threatening the judicial officer.

Interim Protection For Judge Tabassum Khan

In addition, the Division Bench then further goes on to direct and hold in the next paragraph of this remarkable judgement 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.”

Security Alone Is Not Enough

Most commendably and so also most significantly, the Division Bench encapsulates in the next paragraph what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgement, 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.”

Key Observations On Judicial Protection

• Protection has already been provided to the judicial officer.
• The court emphasised that security measures alone are insufficient.
• Authorities must identify and prosecute those issuing threats.
• Concrete legal action is essential to preserve judicial independence.

FIR Registered In The Matter

It would be worthwhile to note that the Division Bench notes in the next paragraph of this rational judgement that “Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, learned Deputy Advocate General, submits that FIR has been registered.”

Superintendent Of Police Directed To Report

Most forthrightly, the Division Bench then directs and holds in the next paragraph of this concise judgement that “The Superintendent of Police will file an affidavit that what action has been taken against the miscreants.”

Directions To Law Enforcement

• FIR has already been registered.
• The Superintendent of Police must submit an affidavit.
• The affidavit must explain the action taken against the alleged miscreants.
• The Court sought accountability for every step taken by the authorities.

Next Date Of Hearing

It certainly merits noting that the Division Bench then notes in the next paragraph of this creditworthy judgement that “Let this matter be taken up on 09.07.2026 for further hearing.”

Judges Cannot Be Threatened For Performing Their Duty

Far most significantly, the Division Bench then mandates in the next paragraph of this pertinent judgement, directing and holding briefly and boldly that "In the meanwhile, the 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 to the liking of a certain section of society.”

Cornerstone Principles Emphasized By The High Court

• Every judicial order is subject to judicial scrutiny.
• The proper remedy against a judicial order is an appeal or revision before the competent forum.
• Threatening a judicial officer for delivering a judgement is unacceptable.
• Judicial independence must remain free from intimidation and external pressure.

Further Directions On Interlocutory Applications

What’s more, the Division Bench then further directs and holds in the next para of this praiseworthy judgement that "issue notice on I.A.No.4702/2026, I.A.No.6957/2026 and I.A.No.22611/2025".

Interlocutory Applications Referred To By The Court

Application Number	Direction
I.A. No. 4702/2026	Notice issued.
I.A. No. 6957/2026	Notice issued.
I.A. No. 22611/2025	Notice issued.

Key Takeaways From The High Court Order

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court treated threats to a judicial officer as a matter affecting judicial independence.
• Senior state officials were directed to personally explain the action taken against those responsible.
• The court ordered continued protection for the Hon'ble Ms Tabassum Khan.
• The bench emphasised that security measures must be accompanied by effective criminal action against the alleged offenders.
• The court reaffirmed that judicial orders are challengeable only through legal remedies such as appeals or revisions and never through intimidation or threats.

Final Observations And Conclusion

Finally, the Division Bench then concludes aptly by directing and holding in the final paragraph of this enlightening judgement that "necessary steps be taken for issuance of notice.”

Chronology Of Key Events

Stage	Event
Lynching Verdict	Judicial Officer Hon’ble Ms Tabassum Khan convicted the accused and sentenced 14 men to life imprisonment.
Threats Issued	Threats and an online hate campaign were allegedly launched against the judicial officer following the verdict.
High Court Action	The Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance and sought explanations from senior state officials.
Protection Ordered	Security was directed to be provided to the honourable Ms Tabassum Khan.
Affidavits Directed	The Director General of Police, the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) and the Superintendent of Police were directed to file affidavits.
Further Hearing	The matter was directed to be listed on 09.07.2026.

Important Legal Principles Reaffirmed

• Judicial independence is an indispensable pillar of the rule of law.
• Judges cannot be intimidated for delivering judicial orders.
• Every judicial order is open to challenge only through legally recognised forums such as appeals or revisions.
• Threats, intimidation and hate campaigns against judicial officers strike at the very foundation of the justice delivery system.
• The State has a duty not only to provide protection to judicial officers but also to take prompt legal action against those responsible for creating fear or issuing threats.

Concluding Remarks

To put things in perspective, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has most commendably demonstrated through this latest judgement that any attempt to threaten or intimidate a judicial officer for discharging judicial functions cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. The Division Bench made it abundantly clear that while every judicial order is subject to appellate or revisional scrutiny in accordance with law, no judge can ever be threatened merely because a section of society disagrees with a judicial determination. Equally commendable is the Court's insistence that providing security alone is not enough and that those responsible for issuing threats must also be identified and proceeded against strictly in accordance with law.

In sum, this notable judgement serves as a strong reaffirmation of judicial independence, fearless administration of justice and the rule of law. It sends an unequivocal message that courts will not permit intimidation of judicial officers and that any such attempt will invite immediate judicial intervention. There can thus be just no denying or disputing that the Madhya Pradesh High Court has most rightly acted in a prompt, firm and principled manner to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and reinforce public confidence in the justice delivery system.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.