The Shadow of Intimidation: Why India’s Judges Are Working Under Siege

As a Madhya Pradesh judge faces a torrent of abuse for her verdict, a landmark case aimed at protecting the judiciary remains stalled in the Supreme Court.

The courtroom is meant to be a sanctuary, a space where the law is applied without fear or favour. Yet, for Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan in Madhya Pradesh, the bench has become a target. Since June 12, when she handed down life sentences to a group of cow vigilantes for the 2022 lynching of truck driver Sheikh Lala Nazir Ahmed, she has been subjected to relentless online abuse and direct threats. Her crime, in the eyes of an online mob, was simply doing her job.

This is not an isolated incident, but rather a chilling symptom of a broader erosion of judicial independence in India. While Judge Khan navigates a barrage of intimidation, a crucial suo motu case intended to secure the safety of judicial officers has been gathering dust in the Supreme Court. The matter, titled In re: Safeguarding Courts and Protecting Judges, was initiated with much urgency during the tenure of former Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, yet its progress has stalled, with the last listing recorded on March 21, 2025.

A Legacy of Silence

The genesis of this judicial safety initiative traces back to the tragic 2021 death of Dhanbad judge Uttam Anand. While out for a morning jog, he was mowed down by a vehicle shortly after denying bail to local gangsters. The incident sent shockwaves through the legal fraternity, forcing the Supreme Court to confront the reality that those who uphold the law are increasingly vulnerable to those who break it.

At the time, an visibly frustrated Justice Ramana lamented that judges have no freedom to work, noting that the constant pressure—ranging from physical threats to the invasive "peeping" into personal online accounts—imposes a heavy mental toll. Despite the Supreme Court’s August 9, 2021 order which emphasised an "institutional need" to create a secure environment, the momentum has vanished. The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) has since issued an unequivocal condemnation of the targeted social media campaigns against judges, but the institutional shield remains elusive.

Why it Matters

The silence of the court on these security matters carries a heavy price. When judicial officers are left to fend for themselves against organised intimidation, the integrity of the entire justice delivery system is compromised. If a judge must weigh the risk of personal violence against the requirements of the law, the concept of a fair trial becomes a casualty.

The bigger picture suggests a disturbing trend where the digital space is weaponised to undermine the rule of law. By failing to expedite the protective measures requested in cases like that of Karunakar Mahalik—who long ago highlighted the need for special security systems—the judiciary risks signalling that its officers are expendable. Protecting judges is not merely about individual safety; it is about ensuring that the law remains the ultimate authority in India, rather than the loudest voice on social media. Without a robust and proactive framework, the bench will continue to be a site of danger, and the promise of equal justice will remain under constant, violent threat.