Lakhimpur Kheri, September 22, 2026: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Allahabad High Court to examine allegations made by advocate Prashant Bhushan against the trial judge hearing the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. The court also sought a report on the allegations in a sealed cover before the next hearing.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also directed the Uttar Pradesh government to appoint a senior and experienced public prosecutor for the trial. The directions came as the Supreme Court continued to monitor proceedings arising from the October 2021 violence, in which eight people were killed, Bar & Bench reports.
High Court Chief Justice Asked To Examine Claims
The Supreme Court directed that Bhushan’s application containing allegations against the trial judge be placed before Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Arun Bhansali for examination.
“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 said.
Bhushan, appearing for the victims, alleged irregularities in the conduct of the trial judge and sought his removal from the case, arguing that his continued involvement could result in a “gross miscarriage of justice”.
The allegations are serious, but they remain allegations at this stage. The Supreme Court’s decision to seek a report from the High Court ensures that the claims will first be examined by the authority exercising administrative control over the trial judge.
Bhushan Flags Handling Of Other Cases
Bhushan alleged that the trial judge had taken up cases assigned to other courts and granted relief to accused persons. He specifically claimed that the judge had assigned several cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to himself and granted bail in them.
“There are some very disturbing events which have taken place, which will shock Your Lordships’ conscience as to how this judge, who is currently dealing with it. Apparently, what he has done is quite shocking, not just in this case but in so many other cases,” Bhushan told the court.
Justice Bagchi pointed out that administrative control over the trial judge rested with the Allahabad High Court and not the Supreme Court. The Bench consequently directed that Bhushan’s application be placed before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
Eyewitness Warrant Comes Under Focus
During Tuesday’s hearing, Bhushan also questioned the trial judge’s handling of eyewitness Sher Singh. The previous trial judge retired on April 15, and the present judge took over the case the following day.
According to Bhushan, Singh could not appear before the court on April 17 because he was unwell. He had submitted a medical slip after being examined at a community health centre. Despite this, Bhushan alleged, the judge issued a non-bailable warrant against him.
Chief Justice Kant noted that the Supreme Court itself had directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and said the trial judge could act when witnesses failed to appear without a satisfactory explanation.
Bhushan responded that Singh had already explained his absence. He further alleged that police later went to the witness’s parents and intimidated them, after which Singh said he did not want to appear.
Court Questions Dropping Of Witnesses
The Supreme Court also questioned why the prosecution had decided not to examine three other witnesses who had been summoned.
Bhushan told the court that the public prosecutor had recently been replaced and claimed that the new prosecutor had only about four months’ experience.
The Bench then directed the Uttar Pradesh government to identify a senior and experienced public prosecutor for 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.
The move is significant given the court’s continuing focus on ensuring that the trial proceeds efficiently while witnesses and evidence are properly dealt with.
Site Plan Allegedly Missing From Record
Bhushan raised another concern, alleging that the site plan relating to the Lakhimpur Kheri violence had gone missing from the trial court record. He claimed that the trial judge had not followed the required procedure to deal with the document’s absence.
The Supreme Court has previously expressed concern over the pace of the trial and directed measures to secure the presence of witnesses. It had also directed that crucial witnesses be examined on priority and that the trial be expedited.
Ashish Mishra, son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra, is among the accused in the case.
Also Watch:
The latest proceedings place the allegations concerning the trial judge before the Allahabad High Court while also putting the Uttar Pradesh government on notice to strengthen the prosecution by appointing a senior and experienced public prosecutor.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
