Back
: Ashish Mishra Bail Hearing; Supreme Court Sends Vigilance Report to HC CJ
The on Monday directed that a vigilance report concerning the presiding officer in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case be placed before the Chief Justice of the for appropriate action. The order came during the hearing of the bail matter of Ashish Mishra, son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, who is an accused in the killing of eight persons during a farmers' protest in October 2021. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana, also took note of the ’s proposal to appoint a new Special Public Prosecutor for the trial.
Background of the Case
The Lakhimpur Kheri violence erupted on , when vehicles allegedly linked to Ashish Mishra’s convoy ran over four protesting farmers, leading to a chain of events that resulted in the deaths of eight individuals, including a journalist and a driver. The incident occurred during the nationwide agitation against the now-repealed farm laws. Mishra was arrested and later granted by the Supreme Court in , with conditions including that he reside in Delhi or Lucknow and not enter Lakhimpur Kheri except for trial. Over the subsequent months, his bail was made absolute, and in , the Court permitted him to visit Lakhimpur Kheri every Saturday evening to spend time with family, subject to strict conditions.
The trial has been mired in procedural controversies. Victims, represented by , had repeatedly raised doubts about the impartiality of the Presiding Officer and the conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor. These concerns prompted the Supreme Court to seek a vigilance report from the , which was submitted in a .
Key Developments in Monday’s Hearing
, appearing for the , informed the bench that the vigilance officer’s report had been sent directly to the Supreme Court. He requested that the report be forwarded to the Chief Justice of the for a decision. The Court ordered: “The report sent by the Vigilance Officer of the shall be placed before the Chief Justice for an appropriate decision in terms of paragraph 3 of our order dated .” (Note: The date appears to be a typographical error in the source; likely referring to a previous order.)
On the issue of the prosecutor, for the State of Uttar Pradesh informed the Court that a new Special Public Prosecutor had been proposed after due consultation with the . The proposed candidate has 16 years of experience, having served as a District Government Counsel with exclusive criminal law practice. The Court recorded the proposal, noting that the State Government will take an appropriate decision on the appointment.
Objections from the Defense
, representing Ashish Mishra, vehemently opposed the change of prosecutor. He argued that since the commencement of the trial, the other side had repeatedly cast on the presiding judge and the prosecutor. “There has been a doubt cast since this trial started by the other side. On every occasion, there is a limit to how much. have been cast on the presiding officer and on the Public Prosecutor,” Dave submitted.
He pointed out that the existing prosecutor had acted pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions, and the trial had progressed only because of the Court’s intervention. Dave further argued that if the vigilance report cleared the presiding judge of the allegations, those making the allegations should be taken seriously. He alleged that attempts to change the Public Prosecutor midway could amount to indirect pressure on the presiding officer. “This is not the manner in which a criminal trial is conducted, by changing the Public Prosecutor midway,” he said.
CJI Surya Kant observed that directions issued by the Supreme Court to expedite a trial can sometimes be viewed differently at the ground level. He clarified that the vigilance inquiry was an exercise under the applicable rules and that the competent judicial authority would take an appropriate decision.
Progress of the Trial
Dave informed the Court that 86 witnesses had already been examined, including a large number of eyewitnesses. He credited the existing prosecutor for the progress and maintained that the accused had no say in who should be the prosecutor or presiding officer. The Supreme Court had earlier expressed disappointment over the slow pace of the trial, particularly the non-production of witnesses for examination over two months. In , the Court directed the trial court to take lawful measures to secure witness presence while ensuring compliance with the .
Allegations of have also dogged the case. In , the Supreme Court sought Mishra’s response on threats to witnesses. In , it directed the to conduct a . Although the registered an FIR, they found no evidence linking Mishra to the alleged intimidation.
Legal Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision to send the vigilance report to the Chief Justice of the underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of trial proceedings. The move allows the High Court’s administrative head to assess any concerns regarding the presiding officer without public prejudice, while also protecting . The objection to changing the prosecutor raises critical questions about the balance between ensuring a and preventing disruption of ongoing proceedings. Changing a prosecutor mid-trial can be disruptive, especially when a large number of witnesses have already been examined. However, the Court’s willingness to consider the State’s proposal suggests a pragmatic approach, leaving the final decision to the government while keeping the trial’s fairness paramount.
Impact on Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, this case highlights the Supreme Court’s active supervisory role in high-profile criminal trials. The vigilance report mechanism serves as a tool to address allegations against trial judges without derailing the proceedings. It also reinforces the principle that while the accused cannot dictate the choice of prosecutor, the prosecution must remain independent and competent. The insistence on witness protection and expedited trials is a reminder of the constitutional obligation to ensure , particularly in cases involving serious crimes and public interest.
The continues to be a focal point for discussions on judicial oversight, trial management, and the interplay between public perception and legal procedure. With the next hearing likely to address the new prosecutor’s appointment and the Chief Justice’s decision on the vigilance report, the legal community will watch closely for further developments.
