E-Paper
The chilling effect of judges getting threats
Judicial independence is not a privilege granted to judges. It is a protection for citizens.
In August 2022, a group of men intercepted a vehicle carrying cattle in Madhya Pradesh’s Narmadapuram district and assaulted its occupants on suspicion of cattle smuggling. The truck driver, 50-year-old Sheikh Lala Nazir Ahmed, died in the attack.
This was no aberration. From Pehlu Khan in Rajasthan to Alimuddin Ansari in Jharkhand, killings justified in the name of cattle protection have carried little consequence. Years of weak accountability for cow vigilantism have created a culture of impunity, signalling to mobs acting in the name of cow protection that they can take the law into their own hands. The difference now is that the target of intimidation is no longer only the victim of the mob — it is the judge who holds the mob accountable.
In June 2026, additional district and sessions judge Tabassum Khan did what her duty required of her: She applied the rule of law and convicted 14 men for the lynching of Nazir Ahmed, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The verdict was followed by a vicious campaign of abuse and vilification. Instead of pursuing an appeal, detractors chose to intimidate the judge. The judge’s religious identity as a Muslim woman was weaponised to inflame passions as self-styled cow vigilantes and their supporters led a wave of death threats and misogynistic abuse. The hostility spilled into the streets, where protesters blocked police vehicles and burned an effigy of the judge. The message was clear: Judges who deliver inconvenient verdicts will be made to pay a price.
The attacks on Khan did not engage with the merits of the judgment. Instead, they were an attempt to strip the judgment of its legal character and give it a communal flavour. By reducing a judge to her religious identity, the objective was to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the verdict itself.
The onslaught was so severe that the home ministry’s cyber cell had to intervene, prompting police to register an FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Madhya Pradesh High Court stepped in suo motu, ordering police protection and condemning the attack on judicial independence. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association both stressed that judicial orders must be challenged in court, not through threats, intimidation, or communal mobilisation. Judicial independence is often discussed as independence from executive pressures. But it also means freedom from fear. A judge who must weigh personal safety before applying the law cannot be truly independent.
The attack on judge Khan exposes the vulnerability of the tier of the judiciary that the Constitution depends upon the most. District judges are often the first point of contact between citizens and the justice system, yet they remain the most exposed to local pressures, political influence, and physical intimidation. In All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court had held that the independence of the district judiciary forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure. It also rejected the term “subordinate judiciary”, holding that a district judge is not subordinate to anyone while exercising judicial functions.
The attacks on Khan are part of a longer history. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991), arising out of the infamous Nadiad incident, the Court responded strongly to the shocking spectacle of chief judicial magistrate NL Patel being illegally arrested, handcuffed, and publicly humiliated by the local police. The Court held that an attack on a judicial officer was an assault on the institution of justice itself. In 2021, Judge Uttam Anand was killed in Dhanbad after denying bail to members of a local gang, once again exposing the dangers faced by judges who discharge their duties fearlessly. The treatment meted out to Khan belongs to the same continuum of attempts to make judges fear the consequences of doing their duty.
But judicial independence is not a privilege granted to judges. It is a protection for citizens. It ensures that courts can decide cases according to law, even when those decisions are unpopular or offend powerful interests. But this promise means little if trial judges cannot serve without fear. Unless the State closes the security gap facing district judges, those entrusted with enforcing justice may be left facing the mob alone.
Ashish Bharadwaj is the pro vice-chancellor of the upcoming WPU Goa. Insiyah Vahanvaty is a socio-political commentator and Author of ‘The Fearless Judge’. The views expressed are personal
