By Sanjay Raman Sinha
The high-profile Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, which has dragged on for more than five years, has now entered another spell of controversy. The case, involving Ashish Mishra, son of former Union Minister of State for Home Ajay Mishra “Teni”, has witnessed an unusual development: the mid-trial replacement of both the presiding judicial officer and the special public prosecutor.
The trial judge was replaced after the victims’ families raised concerns about his integrity and performance, particularly in relation to the grant of bail. The special public prosecutor was also changed following allegations that he had failed to examine key witnesses.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the victims’ families, mounted a sharp challenge to the conduct of the trial. He alleged that the presiding judge had issued a non-bailable warrant against a sick eyewitness, secured the transfer of NDPS and SC/ST cases to his own court, and subsequently granted bail and recorded acquittals in those matters. Bhushan also questioned the judge’s failure to investigate a missing page in the site plan and his requisitioning of cases from other sessions courts, including some that had already reached the final-arguments stage.
He further alleged that the special public prosecutor had been replaced midway through the trial by a lawyer with barely four months of experience, a move that, in his submission, had effectively weakened the prosecution from within.
The victims’ plea argued that these circumstances created a reasonable apprehension that a fair trial could not be conducted before the existing judge. It also questioned the competence and experience of the newly appointed special public prosecutor to handle a case of such sensitivity.
A Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana had earlier asked the Allahabad High Court to examine the allegations and take appropriate action. A report was subsequently submitted in a sealed cover, following which the district and sessions judge and the special public prosecutor were changed during the trial.
The developments raise a larger question about the vulnerabilities of the trial court system, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
The grant of bail necessarily involves an element of judicial discretion. A judge must weigh competing considerations, including personal liberty, the gravity of the offence, the possibility of influencing witnesses and the likelihood of the accused interfering with the investigation or trial. This discretionary space, however, also makes bail decisions susceptible to criticism and allegations of impropriety.
Trial courts operate under enormous caseloads and, in politically charged cases, may also face external pressures. Their decisions are consequently vulnerable to public scrutiny and, sometimes, suspicion. The challenge is to distinguish legitimate judicial discretion from decisions influenced by considerations extraneous to the law.
Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud had observed that trial court judges are often reluctant to grant bail because of the fear of being targeted. But the Lakhimpur Kheri controversy raises another, equally disturbing possibility: can external pressures also operate in the opposite direction, influencing judges to grant bail improperly?
The issue of judicial independence cannot be separated from the physical security of judges either. Following the 2021 killing of Additional District Judge Uttam Anand in Dhanbad, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of threats to judicial officers and the need to ensure their safety.
Lakhimpur Kheri presents a troubling backdrop against which such concerns must be viewed. The accused had political connections, complaints of witness intimidation had led to the registration of a police FIR, and the trial itself had continued for years. In such circumstances, the independence and security of the judicial process become especially important.
Ultimately, however, the central issue remains the right to a fair trial for all parties. An impartial judiciary, supported by a transparent and properly regulated legal-administrative machinery, is indispensable to the equitable dispensation of justice.
The Supreme Court has intervened in comparable situations before. In the Best Bakery case, Zahira Habibulla Sheikh vs State of Gujarat (2004), it ordered a retrial outside Gujarat after serious concerns emerged about the fairness of the original proceedings. The Bilkis Bano case also saw the trial transferred outside Gujarat in 2004. In the Unnao rape case in 2019, the Supreme Court transferred the proceedings outside Uttar Pradesh amid concerns about the fairness and safety of the judicial process.
These interventions underline an important principle: the administration of justice must not merely be fair; it must also inspire confidence that it is fair. The courts have repeatedly emphasised that apprehensions of bias cannot rest on mere suspicion. They must be supported by circumstances establishing a reasonable apprehension or likelihood that justice may not be done.
Yet, the remedy adopted in Lakhimpur Kheri carries its own troubling implications. Replacing a judge midway through a trial may address an immediate concern, but it can also undermine confidence in the judicial process. It affects not merely the reputation of the individual judicial officer, but raises questions about the institutional mechanisms that allowed such doubts to arise in the first place.
The resort to sealed-cover proceedings adds another layer of opacity. While confidentiality may sometimes be necessary during an inquiry, the public interest in transparency is particularly compelling when allegations concern the conduct of a judicial officer in a politically sensitive criminal trial. The replacement of the judge cannot, against this background, be dismissed as a routine administrative reshuffle.
There is an equally important caveat. An allegation is not a finding, and accusations against a judge must not be allowed to become a verdict in the court of public opinion. The dignity and independence of the judiciary demand that serious allegations be examined with the same fairness and rigour that the courts expect of everyone else.
The Allahabad High Court cannot leave such serious charges hanging in the air, nor can it allow them to harden into public judgment without proof. It must complete its inquiry urgently, ensure due process, and place a clear, reasoned conclusion before the Supreme Court.
Only then can the judicial system protect both the integrity of the trial and the dignity of the judge. Neither suspicion nor institutional silence should be allowed to determine the fate of a case that has already waited far too long for justice.
The post When Justice Itself Comes Under Scrutiny appeared first on India Legal.