The Supreme Court has sought a report from the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court on allegations raised by victims' counsel regarding the conduct of the trial judge handling the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. The Court also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to appoint a senior and experienced public prosecutor for the trial.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the directions while continuing to monitor the criminal trial arising from the Lakhimpur Kheri violence.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the victims, raised concerns over the manner in which certain proceedings were being conducted before the trial court.
He referred to the case of an eyewitness who, according to the submissions, could not appear because of illness and had produced medical documents. Bhushan alleged that despite the explanation, a non-bailable warrant was issued against the witness.
He further alleged that the witness's family was subsequently approached by police and that other witnesses had not been examined after the change of the public prosecutor.
Bhushan also raised allegations concerning the trial judge's handling of cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. These allegations were not adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court.
The Bench considered the submissions in the context of its earlier directions for expediting the Lakhimpur Kheri trial. The Court indicated that an order concerning an absent witness could not, by itself, establish misconduct, particularly when the Supreme Court had itself directed that the trial be completed expeditiously.
At the same time, the Bench considered the concerns raised regarding the explanation offered for the witness's absence.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also noted the distinction between the Supreme Court's monitoring of the particular trial and the administrative control exercised by the concerned High Court over the trial judge.
Bhushan informed the Court that the public prosecutor handling the matter had recently been replaced and submitted that the newly appointed prosecutor had limited experience.
The Chief Justice thereafter directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to identify a senior and experienced public prosecutor who could be assigned to the case.
"Let the State government take instructions and place on record its affidavit within two weeks as to which senior, experienced public prosecutor can be allotted for the case," the Court directed.
On the allegations concerning the trial judge, the Supreme Court did not record any finding. Instead, it directed that a copy of the application be placed before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
"Let a copy of this IA also be placed before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to take note of, and let a report concerning the IA be submitted before us in a sealed cover before the next date," the Court ordered.
The Supreme Court accordingly directed the State Government to file its affidavit regarding appointment of a senior prosecutor within two weeks and called for the Allahabad High Court's report on the allegations in a sealed cover before the next date of hearing.
