By Matters India Reporter
New Delhi, July 7, 2026: A prominent Catholic organization in India has condemned what it says is a campaign of threats, intimidation and religiously charged attacks against a judge whose ruling in a mob lynching case sparked a public backlash.
The All India Catholic Union (AICU), Asia’s largest confederation of Catholic laity also called on authorities to safeguard judicial independence and ensure accountability for those responsible for threatening the judge.
In a statement issued July 2 from New Delhi, AICU Asia’s condemned what it described as a coordinated campaign of communal hatred, intimidation and death threats against Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan following her verdict in the 2022 Barakheda mob lynching case.
The backlash followed Khan’s June 12 verdict in the 2022 Barakheda mob lynching case. She convicted seven people for the killing of truck driver Nazir Ahmed, who was beaten to death near Barakheda village in Madhya Pradesh after being suspected of transporting cattle
The organization urged the Madhya Pradesh government, state police and the National Human Rights Commission to take immediate action to protect Khan and prosecute those responsible for the threats.
“AICU strongly condemns the coordinated communal hate campaign, death threats and street intimidation directed at Additional District and Sessions Judge Tabassum Khan of Narmadapuram, Madhya Pradesh, following her verdict in the 2022 Barakheda mob lynching case,” the statement said.
The organization said the judgment was based on “medical evidence, forensic reports and recoveries from the accused” and “explicitly named the killing as an act of mob lynching by an unlawful assembly.”
The AICU described the ruling as “a judgment of unusual clarity from a trial court,” noting that it came nearly four years after the killing.
Rather than prompting a legal challenge through normal judicial channels, the verdict triggered what the organization called an “immediate and organised backlash.” Relatives of those convicted allegedly blocked police vehicles outside the courthouse, while opposition to the verdict spread online and in public demonstrations.
The statement alleged that false claims regarding the number of people convicted circulated on social media and that a television commentator characterized the verdict as “judicial lynching.”
It also cited a June 22 demonstration in Mohali, Punjab, where a cow-protection group reportedly burned an effigy of the judge and threatened violence if those convicted were not released.
AICU calls for protection of judicial independence
The organization said the threats against Khan had taken on a communal character because of her religious identity.
“At the heart of this campaign lies the single, unambiguous fact that Judge Tabassum Khan is a Muslim woman,” the statement said. “Her religious identity — wholly irrelevant to a judgment built on forensic and medical evidence — has been made the target of the attack.”
The AICU further warned that “This is an attempt to intimidate the judiciary, and to punish a judge for doing her duty, by weaponising her faith.”
While acknowledging that security around the judge had been increased and that a police complaint had been registered, the organization expressed concern over what it called a limited law-enforcement response to public threats.
The statement also referenced comments by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, which it said had reminded the country that district judges “are entitled to decide cases according to law without fear for their safety or their families.”
Warning of broader implications, the AICU stated: “When a judge can be hounded, threatened and burned in effigy simply because her verdict named a lynching for what it was, and because she happens to be Muslim, the threat is no longer to one judge alone; it is a warning to every judicial officer in the country.”
The organization demanded “Immediate and visible action” against individuals identified in threatening videos and posts, sustained security protection for Khan and her family, and a public affirmation from Madhya Pradesh authorities supporting a judge’s right to rule “on the evidence before her.”
Concluding its statement, the AICU said it stood “with Judge Tabassum Khan and with the family of Nazir Ahmed,” adding that “The independence of India’s judiciary, and the safety of the men and women who serve on its district benches, cannot be allowed to depend on the religious identity of the judge or the political mood of the moment.”