Madhya Pradesh High Court Steps In to Protect Judge Tabassum Khan
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has intervened to provide police protection to Judge Tabassum Khan after she received threats subsequent to a high-profile verdict. Judge Khan, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, sentenced seven individuals to life imprisonment for the mob lynching of a truck driver, Nazir Ahmed, accused of cattle smuggling. The judgment, delivered on June 12, 2022, led to a backlash, including death threats and communal slurs directed at the judge.
Judicial Independence at Stake
In response to this alarming situation, the High Court, on July 1, took suo motu cognizance of the threats. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh decreed immediate police protection for Judge Khan, recognizing the threats as a significant challenge to the independence and security of judicial officers.
The order was clear: “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,” the Bench stated.
Legal Recourse and Judicial Protection
Following the issuance of threats, the Madhya Pradesh Police registered a First Information Report (FIR) against unknown individuals for the abuse and intimidation directed at Judge Khan. The High Court’s intervention arose while it was hearing an ongoing 2016 suo motu case concerning the safety of judicial officers in Madhya Pradesh.
The Bench emphasized the necessity of safeguarding judicial independence, stating, “We are of the opinion that such activities directly hamper the judicial independence and fearless working of our Judicial Officers.” The court underscored that judicial decisions should be contested only through appropriate legal channels, such as appeals or revisions, rather than through intimidation.
More Read
Further Actions and Accountability
During the hearing, it was reported that police protection had already been arranged for Judge Khan. Nonetheless, the Bench instructed the Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram, to submit an affidavit detailing the measures taken against those responsible for the threats. Additionally, the court sought affidavits from the State’s Director General of Police (DGP) and the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) regarding actions taken to address the intimidation issue.
The case is scheduled for its next hearing on July 9, where further developments are anticipated. Advocate Brajesh Nath Mishra represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Janhvi Pandit and Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthy appeared on behalf of the State. Advocate Rohan Harne represented the intervener.
