SC Directs Allahabad HC Judge Inquiry: Lakhimpur Kheri Trial Judge Probed

• The Supreme Court has ordered the Allahabad High Court to investigate allegations against the trial judge in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.
• Advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged the judge improperly took up cases, including those under NDPS and SC/ST Acts, and granted bail to accused persons.
• A Supreme Court bench, including CJI Surya Kant, directed Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Arun Bhansali to examine the claims and submit a sealed report.
• The apex court also instructed the Uttar Pradesh government to appoint a senior and experienced public prosecutor for the Lakhimpur Kheri trial within two weeks.

This directive from the Supreme Court marks a significant moment for judicial accountability in India.

The Supreme Court has mandated an inquiry into the conduct of the trial judge presiding over the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, specifically involving Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v State of UP. This directive came on Tuesday following serious allegations presented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who represents the victims in the high-profile case. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana issued the order, signaling a significant move to address concerns regarding judicial integrity.

The allegations center on claims that the trial judge engaged in practices deemed "very disturbing," including independently taking up cases that were originally assigned to other judicial forums. Furthermore, it is alleged that the judge subsequently granted relief to accused individuals in these reallocated matters. This development underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring fair and impartial proceedings, particularly in cases of public interest and sensitivity. The apex court's intervention highlights the gravity of the judicial misconduct allegations India is facing.

Advocate Bhushan's submissions to the Supreme Court detailed specific instances of alleged judicial overreach and impropriety. He contended that the trial judge had unilaterally reassigned numerous cases to his own court, particularly those falling under the stringent Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A key aspect of these NDPS Act bail judge allegations and SC/ST Act bail judge allegations was the subsequent granting of bail to accused persons in these self-assigned matters.

These actions, as described by Bhushan, raise serious questions about the proper allocation of judicial workload and the potential for bias in sensitive legal proceedings. The practice of a judge taking up cases assigned to other courts and then granting relief, especially bail, in complex matters like those under the NDPS Act and SC/ST Act, is a core component of the Supreme Court Allahabad High Court judge allegations that prompted the apex court's intervention. The Lakhimpur Kheri trial judge investigation is thus not only about the specific case but also about broader judicial conduct.

In response to these grave concerns, the Supreme Court has specifically instructed Chief Justice Arun Bhansali of the Allahabad High Court to thoroughly examine the allegations against the trial judge. The apex court's bench directed that a copy of the Interlocutory Application (IA) containing Bhushan's complaints be formally presented to the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice. Following this examination, the Allahabad High Court is mandated to submit a comprehensive report on the matter to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover, ensuring confidentiality, before the next scheduled hearing date.

Beyond the inquiry into judicial conduct, the Supreme Court also issued a separate, crucial directive concerning the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case itself. It ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to appoint a senior and experienced public prosecutor to handle the trial. The state government has been given a two-week period to provide an affidavit detailing its instructions and identifying the chosen prosecutor, ensuring that the prosecution's representation is robust and competent. This dual directive underscores the Supreme Court's comprehensive approach to ensuring justice in the Ashish Mishra Alias Monu v State of UP case.

This directive from the Supreme Court marks a significant moment for judicial accountability in India. The SC directs Allahabad HC judge inquiry Lakhimpur Kheri action signals an increased scrutiny on judicial conduct and the integrity of case allocation processes, particularly when it pertains to sensitive matters such as bail grants in cases under the NDPS Act and the SC/ST Act. Such interventions are crucial for maintaining public trust in the judiciary and ensuring that justice is administered without any perception of impropriety.

The outcome of the Allahabad High Court's report, submitted in a sealed cover, will be closely watched. It will not only determine the fate of the specific Lakhimpur Kheri trial judge investigation but also set precedents for how allegations of judicial misconduct are handled across the country. This development reinforces the judiciary's commitment to self-correction and upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct among its members, serving as a critical check on potential abuses of judicial power.

This development signals increased scrutiny on judicial conduct and case allocation, particularly concerning bail grants in sensitive matters like NDPS and SC/ST Act cases. Lawyers should monitor the Allahabad High Court's report for insights into the process of investigating judicial misconduct and its potential implications for judicial accountability and the integrity of trial proceedings.

Source: Reporting based on recent Supreme Court directives