SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Judicial Officers Of The State Of M.P. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP No. 12756 of 2016



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Brajesh Nath Mishra
For the Respondents: Janhvi Pandit, Abhijeet Awasthy

Criminal intimidation of judicial officers for their official decisions is a direct assault on judicial independence, and the state is obligated to provide protection and prosecute perpetrators to ensure the fearless administration of justice.

Headnote:The court addressed a Suo Moto matter regarding the security of judicial officers. It was brought to the court's notice that a Judicial Officer at Narmadapuram faced constant threats from members of society following the issuance of an order against specific stakeholders. The court determined that such threats seriously hamper judicial independence and the fearless functioning of the judiciary. The court framed the issue around the necessity of protecting judicial officers from societal intimidation to maintain the integrity of the legal process. The ratio decidendi is that while judicial orders are subject to legal scrutiny via appeals or revisions, judicial officers cannot be threatened for their decisions. As an interim measure, the court directed the Superintendent of Police Narmadapuram to extend protection to the concerned Additional Judge and ordered the Director General of Police and Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file affidavits within three days regarding steps taken to book the miscreants.

While hearing this writ petition, it has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the High Court as well as through media reports that one of the Judicial Officers at Narmadapuram has been subjected to constant threats by certain members of the society for passing an order against one of the stakeholders.

This is a serious matter.

In the morning, we had requested Advocate General to appear and assist us, but in the meanwhile, this matter has come. We have been informed that Advocate General is addressing Hon'ble Supreme Court through video conferencing.

Nonetheless, without waiting for the Advocate General, we request Smt. Janhvi Pandit, Addl. Advocate General to take notice and file personal affidavit of the Director General of Police and also that of the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) as to what steps are being taken to book the miscreants, who have created an atmosphere of fear for our Judicial Officer at Narmadapuram.

We are of the opinion that such activities directly hampers the judicial independence and fearless working of our Judicial Officers.

Let affidavit of the concerned Director General of Police and the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) be filed within three days.

In the meanwhile, as an interim measure, we direct that our Judicial Officer, namely, Smt. Tabassum Khan, Additional Judge, Seonimalva to the Court of First District and Additional Session Judge, Narmadapuram (M.P.) be extended protection by the Superintendent of Police Narmadapuram.

At this stage, it is informed that, that protection has been extended, but at the same time, Superintendent of Police, Narmadapuram, should also inform as to what steps have been taken to book the persons who have created an atmosphere of threats to the Judicial Officer.

Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, learned Deputy Advocate General, submits that FIR has been registered.

The Superintendent of Police will file affidavit that what action has been taken against the miscreants.

Let this matter be taken up on 09.07.2026, for further hearing.

In the meanwhile, Director General of Police and Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home), shall file their affidavit, especially when we are of the opinion that 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.

Issue notice on I.A.No.4702/2026, I.A.No.6957/2026 and I.A.No.22611/2025.

Necessary steps be taken for issuance of notice.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top