The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Wednesday (July 1), has taken suo motu cognizance of news reports regarding the communal threats issued against the Judge who delivered a verdict against cow vigilantes in a lynching case.

Observing that such threats "directly hampers the judicial independence and fearless working of our Judicial Officers", the Court asked the Madhya Pradesh Director General of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) to personally explain the steps taken to protect a Tabassum Khan, Additional District and Sessions Judge of Narmadapuram district.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh passed the order on July 1 while hearing a pending suo motu reference concerning judicial officers in the State.

Two days ago, LiveLaw had reported about the online posts which targeted the Judge on the basis of her religious identity and issued threats to her after she sentenced 7 persons to life imprisonment for lynching Sheikh Lala Nazir Ahmed, a truck driver, in 2022, over suspicions of cow smuggling.

Calling the development "a serious matter", the High Court observed that such conduct directly undermines the independence of the judiciary.

"We are of the opinion that such activities directly hampers the judicial independence and fearless working of our Judicial Officers," the Court said.

As an interim measure, the Court directed that police protection be continued for Judge Tabassum Khan through the Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram.

Although the State informed the Court that protection had already been provided, the Bench directed the Superintendent of Police to also file an affidavit explaining the action taken against the alleged miscreants responsible for issuing threats.

Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthy informed the Court that an FIR had already been registered in connection with the incident.

The Bench underscored that judicial orders are subject to appellate or revisional scrutiny under the law and cannot become a basis for intimidating judges.

"when we are of the opinion that 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 choses to pass a particular order and that is not of liking of the certain section of the society".

The bench had directed the Additional Advocate General to take notice and file a personal affidavit of the Director General of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary regarding the steps being taken against the miscreants responsible.