On 12 June, Judge Tabassum Khan of a district court in Madhya Pradesh found 14 men guilty of murder, rioting and other crimes that led to the death of a 50‑year‑old man during a 2022 incident involving alleged cattle smuggling. The accused, known as self‑styled cow protectors, allegedly dragged the victim and his companions from a vehicle and beat them, resulting in the victim’s death.
Khan’s judgment described the event as a clear act of mob lynching and imposed life sentences. The decision, however, exposed her to a massive wave of online abuse. Videos surfaced in which Hindu right‑wing figures and others threatened her life, claiming she had acted because the accused were ‘protectors of cows’ and that their loyalty was to Hinduism.
The hostility was not limited to digital attacks. Devotees of cow‑protecting organisations staged protests in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, burned effigies of Khan and demanded releases for the convicted men. The attacks were explicitly targeted at her Muslim identity, with commentators arguing that the violence constituted a direct assault on the authority of a judge.
In response, several senior judicial bodies—including the Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association and the Supreme Court Bar Association—issued statements condemning the threats and calling for action against those responsible. The Madhya Pradesh High Court ordered continued police protection for Khan and asked officials to investigate the perpetrators.
Police officials confirmed that two persons were arrested, and a cyber cell is monitoring online content for further inflammatory posts. A former Supreme Court judge remarked that the situation represented a dangerous inversion of justice, where a judge’s religious identity was weaponised to delegitimize her rulings.
The case illustrates the broader tensions surrounding cow protection movements in India and the vulnerability of judicial personnel who administer justice in a highly politicised environment. It also highlights the necessity for robust security measures for judges and the importance of upholding legal decisions based on jurisprudence rather than religion.
