Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a PIL registered regarding security facilities of District Judges, the Division Bench of B.P. Sharma and Anand Pathak, JJ., took note of the recent alleged threats being given to Justice Tabassum Khan, Additional Judge, Seonimalva, Narmadapuram, due to an order passed by her. Noting that many Judges did not have official accommodations, which impacted their security, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file an affidavit mentioning the steps likely to be taken by the State and a detailed plan for this issue.
Background
The present public interest litigation (PIL) was registered in 2016 after suo motu cognizance was taken by the Acting Chief Justice regarding the security facilities being provided to the District Court Judges due to an incident in Mandsaur.
During the pendency of the present PIL, the Court took note of the media reports which stated that one of the Judicial Officers at Narmadapuram had been subjected to constant threats by certain members of the society for passing an order against one of the stakeholders. Accordingly, vide order dated 1 July 2026, the Court issued notice to the Advocate General and sought a personal affidavit from the Director General of Police (DGP) as well as the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary (Home) as to what steps were being taken to book the miscreants, who had created an atmosphere of fear for Judicial Officers at Narmadapuram.
As an interim measure, the Court directed that the judicial officer named Justice Tabassum Khan, Additional Judge, Seonimalva, to the Court of First District and Additional Sessions Judge, Narmadapuram, shall be extended protection by the Superintendent of Police (SP). The Court was informed that the protection had been provided, and an FIR had been registered. Thus, the SP was directed to file an affidavit detailing actions taken against the miscreants.
The Court remarked that such activities directly hamper judicial independence and fearless working of the judicial officers. Any order passed by the judicial officer is subject to judicial scrutiny as per the forum provided for said scrutiny, be it in the form of appeal or revision. Still, a judicial officer cannot be threatened merely because they choose to pass a particular order which is disliked by a certain section of society.
Accordingly, the DGP and Additional Chief Secretary (Home) filed their affidavits.
Analysis
The Court noted that since the present matter related to the security of Judges of the District Judiciary, who adjudicate criminal trials, family disputes, civil disputes, M.P./M.L.A. Court cases and other contentious issues, they are exposed to accused persons/litigants more. Therefore, ensuring their security was the prime duty of the State to get fair, transparent, and independent adjudication of disputes.
Noting that many Judges did not have official accommodations, the Court stated that the first security measure was to ensure proper housing facilities for District Judges, as living in residential areas exposes them to the public at large. They could not maintain privacy and aloofness, which was required and expected of Judges. Furthermore, in the absence of any proper residential colonies for Judges, ensuring their privacy and security was a remote possibility.
Thus, the Court stated that the role of the State was prominent and it was their duty to ensure availability of sufficient funds for creation of infrastructure/housing projects for Judges so that they can maintain aloofness and feel secure with their families.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file an affidavit mentioning the steps likely to be taken by the State and a detailed plan for this issue. The Court remarked that if the State Government was serious about maintaining the security and well-being of Judges of the District Judiciary, then it would create a concrete plan to address the housing problem faced by Judges/Magistrates of the District Judiciary.
The Court also allowed the Judges’ Association to suggest any other remedial measures on or before the next date of hearing, wherein all such suggestions would be considered.
The matter was listed for 25 August 2026.
[In reference Suo Motu Judicial officers of the State of M.P. v. State of M.P., WP No. 12756 of 2016, decided on 9-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Ashok Kumar Singh, Pratibha Singh
For the respondents: Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi
