An Indian judge has come under intense scrutiny and faces death threats after she sentenced 14 men to life imprisonment for the lynching of a Muslim truck driver in Madhya Pradesh.
On 12 June, Tabassum Khan, an additional district and sessions judge, delivered a verdict that found the accused guilty of murder, attempted murder, rioting and wrongful restraint. The incident occurred in 2022 when a group of self‑staid ‘gau rakshaks’ (cow protectors) intercepted a 50‑year‑old man named Nazir Ahmad while he was transporting cattle, wrongly accusing him of smuggling cows.
Ahmad was dragged from the vehicle and brutally assaulted, ultimately dying from his injuries. In her judgement Khan described the crime as a clear case of mob lynching.
Instead of criticizing the legal reasoning, the backlash focused on Khan’s religion. Videos filmed on social media repeatedly abused and threatened the Muslim judge, alleging that her verdict was biased against Hindus who, the videos claimed, “spear‑headed the protection of cows.”
Following the ruling, families of the convicted men blocked the court’s premises and attempted to halt the police convoy that promised to transport them to prison. By 22 June the Gau Raksha Parishad staged a protest in Punjab where they assaulted and burned an effigy of Khan, while the Rashtriya Bajrang Dal held a similar demonstration in Uttar Pradesh demanding the release of the so‑called ‘cow protectors.’
Supreme Court and high court associations quickly rallied behind Khan. The Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association condemned threats against her and demanded action against the perpetrators. Several senior judicial bodies, including a High Court order, instructed police to trace the origin of the inflammatory videos and maintain a protective detail for Khan.
Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju, reflected on the case by questioning the legitimacy of a judge who had “been reduced to her religion.” Vikas Singh, president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, warned that allowing such abuse to continue would undermine the judiciary’s role in a democracy. Police officials confirmed arrests under the Indian Penal Code, and cyber cells are monitoring the spread of threats.
Other judicial actors highlighted the precedent set by a 2024 instance of threats against a former high‑court judge, arguing that a state’s duty to protect judges should be non‑discriminatory, independent of rank or religion.
