The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has taken serious note of alleged threats issued to a judicial officer at Narmadapuram over an order passed by her, observing that such acts strike at the very foundation of judicial independence. The Court directed the State to ensure security for the officer and called for personal affidavits from the Director General of Police (DGP) and the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) detailing the steps taken against those responsible.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh passed the directions while hearing a suo motu matter concerning judicial officers in the State.
The Court noted that it had been informed by counsel for the High Court, as well as through media reports, that Smt. Tabassum Khan, Additional Judge, Seoni Malwa to the Court of First District and Additional Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram, had been subjected to constant threats by certain members of society after passing an order against one of the stakeholders. Describing the development as “a serious matter”, the Bench observed that such conduct directly undermines the independence and fearless functioning of the judiciary. The Court observed:
“
“We are of the opinion that such activities directly hampers the judicial independence and fearless working of our Judicial Officers.”
Accordingly, the Court directed the DGP and the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) to file affidavits within three days explaining the measures taken to identify and prosecute those who had allegedly created an atmosphere of fear for the judicial officer.
As an interim measure, the Bench directed the Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram, to provide security to the judicial officer. While noting the State’s submission that protection had already been extended and that an FIR had been registered, the Court further directed the Superintendent of Police to place on record the action taken against the alleged miscreants.
Emphasising the sanctity of the judicial process, the Bench observed that orders passed by judicial officers are subject to appellate or revisional scrutiny under law, and not to intimidation or threats. The Court 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 choses to pass a particular order and that is not of liking of the certain section of the society.”
The matter has been directed to be listed on July 9, 2026, for further hearing after the State files the required affidavits.
