New Delhi — A sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is facing a wave of hostile crowds outside the Bhopal courtroom and a coordinated on‑line campaign that accuses him of bias, while a 2021 Supreme Court suo motu petition intended to safeguard judicial officers has not been scheduled for hearing since March 2025, the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAR) said on Tuesday.
The SCAR, a body of lawyers authorized to appear before the apex court, condemned the “systematic” threats and social‑media attacks on the unnamed judge and warned that the silence of the Supreme Court on the pending petition leaves the judge vulnerable to “mob intimidation.” The association urged the Court to place the matter on its docket without further delay, invoking the constitutional guarantee of judicial independence.
What happened
The Supreme Court’s own bench initiated a suo motu case in 2021 after a series of attacks on judges across the country, seeking comprehensive safeguards for members of the judiciary and the courts. According to SCAR, the petition was last listed for a hearing in March 2025; since then, no further orders have been issued and the case remains “mute” in the Court’s calendar.
In the weeks leading up to the SCAR’s statement, the Madhya Pradesh judge reported that crowds gathered outside the High Court in Bhopal, shouting slogans and demanding his resignation over recent rulings. Simultaneously, social‑media users launched a targeted campaign, posting messages that questioned the judge’s impartiality and calling for punitive action against him. The judge’s identity has not been disclosed publicly.
Why it matters
The SCAR argues that the Supreme Court’s inaction on a petition designed to protect its own officers could set a dangerous precedent, potentially emboldening similar intimidation tactics elsewhere. “When the highest court does not act decisively on a matter that concerns the safety of its own officers, it undermines public confidence in the rule of law,” said a senior advocate who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Judicial independence is a cornerstone of India’s constitutional framework, and any perception that judges can be pressured by public mobs or online harassment threatens the credibility of the legal system. If the Supreme Court does not address the petition promptly, critics fear that the judiciary may appear reluctant to defend its members against extrajudicial coercion.
Background and context
India’s judiciary has faced a series of high‑profile confrontations with political actors and civil‑society groups in recent years, prompting calls for stronger protective mechanisms. The 2021 suo motu filing was a response to a perceived rise in attacks on judges, ranging from physical protests to digital vilification. While the Supreme Court has the authority to issue directions for the safety of its officers, the procedural delay highlighted by SCAR suggests a gap between the Court’s institutional mandate and its operational response.
The SCAR’s statement also notes that the petition seeks “comprehensive safeguards,” though the specific measures under consideration have not been disclosed publicly. The association’s demand for a hearing reflects broader concerns among legal practitioners that existing security protocols may be insufficient to deter coordinated campaigns that blend street protests with online harassment.
Competing claims and uncertainty
The Madhya Pradesh state government has not issued a comment on either the alleged threats or the status of the Supreme Court petition, leaving a gap in official clarification. While SCAR characterizes the social‑media activity as a “systematic” campaign, the precise origins, organizers, or funding sources of the online attacks remain unidentified in the public record.
Legal experts cited by SCAR warn of a precedent‑setting risk, yet no official response from the Supreme Court has been provided to explain the docket delay. The Court’s silence fuels speculation, but without a formal statement, the reasons for postponement—whether procedural backlog, pending deliberations, or other factors—cannot be confirmed.
What to watch next
– Supreme Court scheduling – Observers will monitor the Court’s calendar for any notice of a hearing on the 2021 petition. A prompt listing would signal a willingness to address judicial safety concerns.
– Official response from Madhya Pradesh – A statement from the state government regarding the alleged mob activity and any security measures for the judge could clarify the administrative stance.
– Further actions by SCAR – The association may file a petition for interim relief or seek a court‑ordered timeline, steps that could appear in future filings.
– Civil‑society and media coverage – NGOs focused on judicial independence and media outlets may amplify the issue, potentially prompting broader public debate on the adequacy of existing protective frameworks.
Conclusion
The stagnation of a Supreme Court‑initiated petition meant to shield judges from intimidation coincides with a palpable surge in both street‑level and digital threats against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge. While the SCAR has called the inaction “dangerous” for the rule of law, the lack of an official explanation from the apex court and silence from the state government leave the matter unresolved. The next few weeks will be critical in determining whether the judiciary will take decisive steps to reinforce its own security mechanisms or allow the current impasse to persist, with implications for public confidence in India’s legal system.
Sources
– The Hindu, “Madhya Pradesh judge faces mob fury as suo motu case to protect judicial officers sits mute in SC,” https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/madhya-pradesh-judge-faces-mob-fury-as-suo-motu-case-to-protect-judicial-officers-sits-mute-in-sc/article71174729.ece
Story synopsis gathered from: The Hindu – National — source
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
