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. File | Photo credit: narmadapuram.dcourts.gov.in

Madhya Pradesh Justice Tabassum Khan has faced online abuse and threats since June 12 when she sentenced a group of cow vigilantes to life imprisonment for the lynching of truck driver Sheikh Lala Nazir Ahmed in August 2022. It even comes as a suo threat, a judge’s threat of actual violence and a motu to protect the languishing in the Supreme Court.

The suo motu case was initiated after another District and Sessions Judge Uttam Anand, this time from Dhanbad in Jharkhand, was mowed down by a vehicle while he was out for a morning jog in 2021. Shortly before his death, he had allegedly rejected bail applications for some gangsters. The case sent shockwaves across the country and forced the Supreme Court to sit up and take notice.

Thereafter, Chief Justice of India NV Ramana summoned senior advocate KK Venugopal, who was the Attorney General of India at the time, to express the court’s concern over the increasing cases of violence and smear campaigns against the judiciary.

“Judges do not have the freedom to work,” a visibly upset Justice Ramana said in an open courtroom on August 6, 2021, pointing out that threats, abusive messages and “peeping” of online accounts take a toll not only physically but also mentally on judges.

“Alarming situation”

A few days later, the Supreme Court handed over the investigation into Justice Anand’s death to the Central Bureau of Investigation. His August 9, 2021 order emphasized the need to “address the alarming situation in the country where judicial officials and lawyers are under pressure and intimidated by threats and/or actual violence. There is therefore an institutional need to create an environment where judicial officials feel safe and secure.”

The same August 9 order marked a suo motu case, In re: Security of Courts and Protection of Judges, with an earlier suit filed by advocate Karunakar Mahalik, who said there was an “urgent need” for a “special security system to protect court premises and persons connected with the administration of justice”.

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

Unequivocal condemnation

The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) issued a statement “unequivocally condemning” the threats and “targeted social media campaign” against Justice Khan. The Association of Powerful Advocates said the judge was only performing her judicial duties.

“Injunctions must be challenged in the Courts of Appeal, not through intimidation, defamation or threats against judges… The District Judiciary is the backbone of our justice delivery system,” SCAORA said, expressing solidarity with Justice Khan.

The statement was in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association versus Union of India that “the independence of the district judiciary must also be part of the basic structure of the Constitution”. This judgment, authored by Justice PS Narasimha for a three-judge bench, held in May 2023 that justice, which was the “pre-embula objective”, would remain illusory without impartial and independent judges in the district judiciary.

Criminal contempt

In the 1991 judgment in the case of Delhi Judicial Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that “those who have to perform duties before the Court are protected by law and protected in the discharge of their duties”.

This case related to the shocking incident of a Chief Judicial Magistrate in Nadiad, Gujarat, who was forced to consume alcohol, assaulted, tied with a rope, handcuffed by the police and photographed.

The 1991 verdict said any willful interference with the performance of duties, whether in or outside the courtroom by assaulting a judicial officer, would amount to criminal contempt, adding that courts “must take note” of such conduct.

Published – 02 Jul 2026 21:17 IST