Back
Asks to Examine Allegations Against Lakhimpur Kheri Trial Judge
The of India on Tuesday directed the to examine serious allegations of misconduct against the trial judge presiding over the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also ordered the to appoint a senior and experienced for the trial, expressing concern over the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted.
The case arises from the Lakhimpur Kheri violence, which resulted in the deaths of eight people, including four farmers. Ashish Mishra, son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, is among the accused. The has been monitoring the trial to ensure its , but recent developments have raised questions about the fairness of the process.
Allegations That Shocked the Court
, appearing for the victims, leveled multiple allegations against the trial judge. He claimed that the judge had unilaterally withdrawn to himself several cases under the
and the
, which were assigned to other courts, and granted bail or acquitted the accused.
"The conduct of the presiding officer will
,"
Bhushan submitted, adding that the judge's actions were not limited to the Lakhimpur Kheri case but extended to numerous other matters.
Specifically, Bhushan alleged that the judge issued a against Sher Singh on , despite the witness having submitted a medical slip from a community health centre indicating illness. The previous trial judge had retired on , and the new judge took over the next day. Bhushan argued that the witness had provided a valid explanation for his absence, but the judge proceeded with the warrant. He further claimed that police subsequently intimidated the witness's parents, leading the witness to express unwillingness to testify.
Additionally, Bhushan pointed out that the relevant to the Lakhimpur Kheri violence had gone missing from the , and the judge failed to follow the for dealing with such a loss. He also noted that the had been changed midway through the trial, and the new prosecutor had only about four months of experience.
's Measured Response
Taking note of these submissions, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the
had earlier directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, and that the judge could take action if witnesses failed to appear without a satisfactory explanation. However, he agreed that the allegations required scrutiny. The bench directed that Bhushan's application be placed before Chief Justice Arun Bhansali of the
.
"Let a copy of this
also be placed before the Chief Justice of the
to take note of, and let a report concerning the
be submitted before us in a
before the next date,"
the order stated.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that administrative control over the trial judge lies with the , not the , and therefore the appropriate forum for examining the allegations was the . The bench also asked the to identify a senior prosecutor for the case and submit an within two weeks.
Concerns Over Trial Conduct
The 's intervention highlights the delicate balance between and the . While the apex court has the power to monitor trials in exceptional circumstances, it refrained from directly removing the judge, instead deferring to the 's . This approach ensures that the trial judge's reputation is protected until a thorough inquiry is conducted.
Bhushan had argued that allowing the incumbent judge to continue would result in a "," but the bench emphasized the need for . The allegations of and missing evidence are particularly troubling, as they strike at the heart of a . The directive to appoint a senior prosecutor is also significant, as it aims to strengthen the prosecution's case and ensure that the trial is conducted with the requisite expertise.
The Quest for a
The Lakhimpur Kheri case has been politically sensitive since its inception, with the stepping in multiple times to ensure a fair and speedy trial. The latest developments underscore the challenges of conducting high-profile trials in a polarized environment. The 's report, expected in a , will be crucial in determining the future course of the trial.
Legal experts note that the 's decision to seek a report rather than order immediate removal reflects a cautious approach, respecting the hierarchical structure of the judiciary. However, if the allegations are substantiated, it could lead to a change of judge and a fresh start to the trial. For now, the focus remains on the appointment of a senior prosecutor and the restoration of confidence in the judicial process.
The next hearing is awaited, with the likely to take further directions based on the 's report. The victims and the accused alike will be watching closely, as the outcome could set a precedent for how courts handle allegations of in ongoing trials.
