SCBA & SCAORA Rally Behind Judge Tabassum Khan, Condemn Threats as an Assault on Judicial Independence
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
New Delhi, July 3: In a significant show of institutional solidarity with the subordinate judiciary, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have strongly condemned the alleged threats, online vilification, and intimidation directed against Ms. Tabassum Khan, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhya Pradesh, describing the attacks as a grave affront to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law.
The statements issued by the two premier bodies of the Supreme Court Bar come amid mounting concern over the safety of judicial officers following reports that Judge Tabassum Khan was subjected to threats and an abusive social media campaign after delivering a judgment in a criminal case in the discharge of her judicial functions.
The controversy has already prompted the registration of an FIR and the enhancement of the judicial officer’s security.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has also taken Suo motu cognisance of the matter and initiated proceedings to examine the circumstances surrounding the threats.
In a strongly worded statement, the Supreme Court Bar Association observed that attacks on judges for faithfully discharging their judicial responsibilities strike at the heart of the constitutional promise of an independent judiciary.
Emphasising the pivotal role played by the district judiciary, the SCBA noted that judicial officers across the country adjudicate thousands of sensitive civil and criminal disputes every day and deserve the assurance that the law will protect them whenever they perform their constitutional duties fearlessly and impartially.
“The District Judiciary is the foundation of our justice delivery system,” the Association stated, adding that any attempt to intimidate or undermine a judicial officer for rendering a judicial decision must be firmly resisted.
The SCBA reaffirmed its unwavering commitment to preserving the independence, dignity, and impartiality of the judiciary, describing judicial independence as one of the cornerstones of the Constitution.
It further called upon the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Government of Madhya Pradesh to ensure a prompt, fair, and effective investigation into the incident, identify all individuals responsible for issuing threats or inciting hatred against the judicial officer, and initiate stringent legal action against them in accordance with law.
Echoing similar concerns, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) issued a separate statement unequivocally condemning what it termed a targeted campaign of intimidation against the judicial officer.
The Association underscored a foundational principle of the justice delivery system that judicial orders are to be challenged before appellate courts through established legal remedies, and not through intimidation, vilification, or threats directed at judges.
“Judicial orders are to be challenged before appellate courts, not through intimidation, vilification or threats against judges,” the Association observed, warning that such conduct strikes at the very foundation of judicial independence and the rule of law.
SCAORA cautioned that if judicial officers are made to fear personal consequences for decisions rendered in accordance with law, it could have a chilling effect on the functioning of district courts across the country.
It stressed that members of the subordinate judiciary routinely adjudicate difficult and sensitive matters and must be assured that they can discharge their judicial functions without fear, favour, or external pressure.
Describing the district judiciary as the backbone of India’s justice delivery system, the Association said it was imperative that institutional safeguards continue to protect judicial officers from attempts at coercion or harassment arising out of their judicial work.
Expressing solidarity with Judge Tabassum Khan, SCAORA voiced the hope that all necessary measures would be taken to ensure her safety while preserving the independence and dignity of every judicial officer.
The twin statements from the SCBA and SCAORA assume considerable significance, as both bodies represent the country’s leading legal practitioners before the Supreme Court and have historically spoken on issues affecting judicial independence and the administration of justice.
The controversy has reignited concerns over the increasing instances of online abuse and targeted intimidation faced by judicial officers following the pronouncement of judicial orders.
Legal observers have noted that while judgments remain open to appellate scrutiny within the framework of law, personal attacks and threats against judges undermine public confidence in the justice delivery system and erode the institutional independence that forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
With both the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association unequivocally backing the judicial officer and calling for strict legal action against those responsible, the episode has emerged as yet another reminder of the constitutional imperative to protect judges from intimidation and preserve the institutional integrity of the judiciary.
