Madhya Pradesh judge faces mob fury as suo motu case to protect judicial officers sits mute in Supreme Court

Madhya Pradesh Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan has been facing online harassment and threats since June 12, when he sentenced a group of cow vigilantes to life imprisonment for lynching truck driver Sheikh Lala Nazir Ahmed in August 2022. suo motu The case to protect judges like him from “pressure, intimidation, threats and actual violence” is languishing in the Supreme Court.

suo motu The case was initiated after another Additional District and Sessions Judge Uttam Anand, this time from Dhanbad in Jharkhand, was mowed down by a vehicle while he was going for a morning walk in 2021. He reportedly rejected bail petitions for some gangsters shortly before his death. The case sent shockwaves across the country and forced the Supreme Court to sit down and take notice.

The then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had summoned senior advocate KK Venugopal, who was then the Chief Justice of India, to express the court’s concerns over the increasing cases of violence against the judiciary and smear campaigns.

“Judges have no freedom to work,” said Judge Ramana, visibly upset, in the public courtroom on August 6, 2021, noting that threats, harassing messages, and “snooping” on online accounts place not only a physical but also a mental burden on judges.

‘A worrying situation’

A few days later, the high court handed over the investigation into Justice Anand’s death to the Central Bureau of Investigation. His order, dated August 9, 2021, emphasized the need to “resolve the alarming situation in the country where judicial officials and lawyers are pressured and intimidated by threats and/or actual violence.” Therefore, there is an institutional need to create an environment where judicial officers feel safe and secure.”

The same August 9 order labeled: suo motu case, In: Protection of Courts and Protection of JudgesIn a writ petition filed earlier by advocate Karunakar Mahalik, who said there was a “crying need” for a “dedicated security system to protect court premises and persons associated with the justice delivery system”.

The Supreme Court’s website shows: suo motu The case and the Mahalik petition were last listed on March 21, 2025.

outright condemnation

The Supreme Court Records Advocates Association (SCAARA) issued a statement “strongly condemning” the threats and “targeted social media campaign” against Justice Khan. The powerful lawyers’ association said the judge was merely performing his judicial duties.

Expressing its solidarity with Justice Khan, SCAORA said, “Judicial decisions should be challenged before appellate courts and not through intimidation, slander or threats against judges…The district judiciary forms the backbone of our justice delivery system.” he said.

The statement was in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court. All India Judges Association vs Union of India “The independence of the regional judiciary should also be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.” This judgment, written by Justice PS Narasimha for a three-judge Bench, had ruled in May 2023 that the “preliminary objective” of justice would remain illusory without impartial and independent judges in the district judiciary.

criminal contempt

In a decision dated 1991 Delhi Judicial Service Association vs Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, State of GujaratThe Supreme Court ruled that “those who have to serve on the Court of Justice are protected by law and are protected while performing their duties.”

This case was about the shocking incident of the Chief Justice in Nadiad in Gujarat, who was forced to drink, assaulted, roped, handcuffed by police officers and photographed.

In the 1991 decision, it was observed that any intentional interference with the performance of duty by attacking a judicial officer, inside or outside the courtroom, would amount to criminal contempt, and it was stated that courts “must seriously consider” such actions.