New Delhi: Multiple videos on social media targeting additional district and sessions judge Tabassum Khan from Madhya Pradesh—after she sentenced 14 men to life imprisonment for lynching a cow trader—have brought back focus on judges receiving communal threats for orders passed by them.
On 12 June, judge Khan had convicted the group of men for the 2022 lynching of cattle trader Nazir Ahmed in Madhya Pradesh, holding that they had formed an unlawful assembly, intercepted the victim’s vehicle and “mob lynched”, resulting in death of the man.
In one video in response to the order, a man refers to judge Khan as a “m*lli m*darc**d” and threatens that if the “14 brothers” aren’t released, there will be massacre in the country. Addressing Hindus, the entire minute-long video, viral on social media, has communally charged remarks and warnings against Muslims in India.
The Madhya Pradesh Police in Narmadapuram district have registered a suo-moto FIR against two unidentified individuals under Sections 302 (uttering words or gestures with intent to wound religious feelings) and 196 (promoting enmity between communities) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
On Friday, the Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance of these threats against judge Khan, observing that judicial officers cannot be intimidated for passing orders. “We are of the opinion that such activities directly hamper the judicial independence and fearless working of our judicial officers,” said a bench of Justices Vivek Agarwal and Avanindra Kumar Singh, who ordered security for her and strict action against those responsible.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCORA) Wednesday condemned the online abuse and communal threats.
“Judicial orders are to be challenged before appellate courts, not through intimidation, vilification or threats against judges. Such conduct strikes at the very foundation of judicial independence and the rule of law. If judges are made to fear personal consequences for decisions rendered in accordance with law, it can have a serious negative impact on the independence and functioning of the district courts,” it stated in a letter.
Noting that the district judiciary forms the backbone of the justice delivery system in India, with judicial officers routinely called upon to decide difficult and sensitive matters, the lawyer’s body emphasised that members of the district judiciary have the reassurance that they will be able to discharge their judicial functions without fear or intimidation, and that the institutional framework remains committed to protecting their independence.
“The Association stands in solidarity with the learned Judge and expresses the hope that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure her safety and to uphold the independence and dignity of every judicial officer,” the letter added.
Speaking to ThePrint, former Supreme Court judge Hemant Gupta also condemned the attacks and threats to judges who pass orders against other groups. He said that threats to “all judges at whichever level are condemnable” and “nobody is entitled to raise any finger against any judge”.
Urging to draw a distinction, he added: “You criticise judgements but not the judges—irrespective of the place or the standing of the court or the level of the court”.
He further asserted that “contempt of court is not a solution”.
Author and public interest litigator at the Supreme Court Prashant Bhushan also views the threats as gross criminal contempt of court and told ThePrint that communal abuse is an offence under the penal code, for which prosecution is warranted.
“Strong action should be taken and the courts should direct the authorities to prosecute them. If it is a lower court judge, they should refer the matter to the higher court for contempt of court proceedings,” he added.
Noting that the threats could be “idle”, Bhushan said that if the judges ask for security, they should be given so.
Other judges under threat
Judge Khan’s case gains more significance in the wake of what retired Justice G.S. Patel of the Bombay High Court has been going through regarding a decision he had taken in 2024.
Justice Patel and his family have been facing a transnational intimidation campaign aimed at forcing him to publicly retract a landmark April 2024 judgement that settled the Dawoodi Bohra community succession dispute. The order was delivered right before his retirement.
He ruled that Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin was validly appointed as the 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq (spiritual leader) of the community.
The judge has been facing threats for nearly 10 months and demands that he upload a YouTube video apologising and publicly retracting his order.
In April 2026, the judge’s daughter, Aditi Patel, was assaulted by a masked individual in a security blind spot in London, resulting in a fractured nose. On 5 June, the family in London received an anonymous letter that reportedly contained an SD card with body-camera footage of the assault.
The situation escalated significantly into a security and judicial crisis, drawing intervention from the Supreme Court of India and international law enforcement.
The Bombay High Court on 15 June ordered the Maharashtra government to provide protection to the judge, asking the Centre to report on steps taken to protect his daughter. A vacation bench comprising Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Sanjeev Sachdeva issued a sharp warning, stating that such intimidation directly undermines judicial independence and threatens the rule of law.
In August 2017, after Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) special judge Jagdeep Singh convicted Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh for raping two of his female disciples—sentencing him to 20 years in prison—it triggered wide and violent riots by dera supporters across Panchkula and nearby areas, resulting in dozens of casualties.
The judge was then granted the highest level of Z+ security after he got severe threats following his order.
Similarly, a March 2022 Karnataka High Court verdict upholding the state ban on the hijab in educational institutions triggered massive communal polarisation and explicit death threats against the three judges who delivered the ruling. The three-judge bench of then Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justices Krishna S. Dixit and J.M. Khazi faced the wrath before eventually getting tighter security.
Following the verdict, a video had surfaced from a public meeting in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, where a speaker issued an open threat to the judges. The speaker explicitly referenced the high-profile 2021 murder of an additional district judge in Dhanbad, Jharkhand, who was intentionally run over by an autorickshaw. He added that people knew exactly where the Karnataka Chief Justice goes for morning walks.
The Supreme Court currently has a pending suo motu case pertaining to safeguarding courts and protecting judges, initiated after the suspicious death of Dhanbad Additional Sessions Judge Uttam Anand in a hit-and-run in 2021. Despite continued protests regarding the physical and mental vulnerability of district judiciary officers, the case remains largely inactive.
The case was registered in July 2021, after Justice Anand was apparently deliberately run over by an autorickshaw while he was on his morning walk. Prior to his death, he had denied bail to two gangsters. The case was expected to lead to the formulation of national guidelines for protecting judges from pressure, intimidation, and violence.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Allahabad HC upholds NSA detention of 3 men for ‘cattle slaughter on first day of Navratri’