The Madhya Pradesh High Court took suo motu cognisance of threats against Judge Tabassum Khan, holding that judicial officers cannot be intimidated for passing orders and directing protection, affidavits from top officials, and strict action against those responsible.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court taken serious note of threats allegedly issued to Judicial Officer Smt. Tabassum Khan, observing that such acts directly undermine judicial independence and the fearless functioning of judges.
Acting suo motu, the Court directed the State Government’s top officials to explain the steps taken against those responsible and ordered continued police protection for the judge.
The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh while hearing a pending writ petition.
During the hearing, the Court was informed by counsel for the High Court as well as through media reports that a Judicial Officer posted at Narmadapuram had been subjected to continuous threats from certain members of society after passing an order against one of the stakeholders.
Treating the issue with utmost seriousness, the Bench observed,
“This is a serious matter.”
Although the Advocate General was unavailable as he was appearing before the Supreme Court through video conferencing, the Court requested Additional Advocate General Janhvi Pandit to immediately respond to the matter.
It directed the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) to file personal affidavits explaining the action taken to identify and prosecute those responsible for creating an atmosphere of fear around the judicial officer.
Highlighting the importance of protecting judges from external pressure, the Court observed,
“We are of the opinion that such activities directly hampers the judicial independence and fearless working of our Judicial Officers.”
The High Court directed that both senior officials must submit their affidavits within three days.
As an interim measure, the Court ordered that Smt. Tabassum Khan, Additional Judge, Seonimalva, attached to the Court of the First District and Additional Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram, should continue to receive police protection from the Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram.
The Court was informed during the hearing that security had already been provided. However, it further directed the Superintendent of Police to file an affidavit detailing the concrete steps taken against those who allegedly threatened the judicial officer.
The State also informed the Bench that an FIR has already been registered against the alleged miscreants.
Making a strong statement on judicial independence, the High Court emphasized that judicial orders must be challenged only through legal remedies available under law and not by threatening judges.
The Bench observed,
“Any order passed by the Judicial Officer is subject to judicial scrutiny as per the forum provided for said scrutiny, be in the form of appeal or revision, but our judicial officer cannot be threatened merely because he or she chooses to pass a particular order and that is not of liking of the certain section of the society.”
The Court fixed the matter for further hearing on July 9, 2026, by which time the DGP, the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home), and the Superintendent of Police are expected to file their respective affidavits detailing the action taken in the matter.
The order reinforces the High Court’s firm stand that judicial officers must be allowed to perform their constitutional duties without fear, intimidation, or external pressure, and that dissatisfaction with judicial orders must be addressed only through appellate or revisional remedies provided under law.