Madhya Pradesh High Court has ordered police protection for Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan after she faced communal abuse, online vilification and threats over her verdict in a 2022 mob-lynching case in Narmadapuram district.
A division bench of Justices Vivek Agarwal and Avanindra Kumar Singh took suo motu cognisance of the threats on July 1 and said intimidation of a judicial officer for passing an order directly affected judicial independence. The court directed the Director General of Police and the senior Home Department official to file personal affidavits detailing the action taken against those responsible for the threats and the measures put in place to protect the judge.
Judge Khan, posted at Narmadapuram, had on June 12 sentenced seven men to life imprisonment for the lynching of truck driver Sheikh Lala Nazir Ahmed, who was attacked in August 2022 on suspicion of cow smuggling. Connected proceedings in the case have placed the total number of convicts sentenced to life terms at 14 across two judgments, making the verdict one of the more significant trial-court rulings on vigilante violence linked to cattle transport.
The High Court’s intervention came after reports of hostile social media posts, death threats and communal slurs directed at the judge. The bench observed that a judicial officer could not be threatened merely because a section of society disliked a particular order. It also asked the Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram, to inform the court what steps had been taken to identify and book those who had created an atmosphere of fear around the officer.
The case originated from an attack around 12.30am on August 3, 2022, near Barakhad village in the Seoni Malwa area. Nazir Ahmed was travelling in a truck along with Sheikh Lala and Syed Mushtaq when a group armed with sticks and lathis intercepted the vehicle. The three men were assaulted after being accused of transporting cattle illegally. Ahmed was taken to the Community Health Centre at Seoni Malwa in an unconscious condition and later died. The post-mortem recorded multiple injuries, including head wounds, skull fractures and extensive contusions.
The trial court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, committed rioting and attacked the victims with the intention of causing death or injuries likely to cause death. The court described the assault as brutal and convicted the men under provisions relating to rioting, attempt to murder and murder read with common object.
The court declined to award the death penalty after weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, observing that the possibility of reform could not be ruled out. It imposed life imprisonment and also recommended compensation for Ahmed’s wife, children and surviving parents under the victim compensation scheme. The two injured survivors were ordered to receive compensation from the fine amount after the appeal period.
Tension was visible outside the court after the judgment, when relatives of the convicted men tried to prevent the police vehicle from taking them to jail. The verdict then became the focus of an online campaign that sought to frame the sentencing in communal terms rather than as a criminal conviction in a murder case. Police have registered an FIR against unidentified persons over the threats.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association condemned the campaign against Judge Khan, saying judicial orders must be challenged before appellate courts rather than through intimidation, vilification or threats against judges. The statement reflected growing concern within the legal community over personal attacks on judges after contentious rulings, particularly when court orders intersect with communal or political mobilisation.
The High Court’s order has sharpened attention on the security of subordinate court judges, who often handle sensitive criminal trials without the public visibility or institutional protection available to judges in higher courts. Threats against district judges are viewed as especially serious because trial courts are the first point where witnesses are examined, evidence is tested and convictions are recorded.
