The Supreme Court on Monday directed that the vigilance report concerning the trial judge in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case be placed before the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for an appropriate decision, pursuant to its directions issued at the previous hearing.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing the matter.

At the previous hearing on September 22, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the victims, had raised concerns over the conduct of the presiding officer handling the Lakhimpur Kheri trial, including allegations that the judge had withdrawn cases from other courts to himself and granted bail or acquitted accused persons. Concerns were also raised over the treatment of witnesses and the replacement of the Public Prosecutor. The Supreme Court had then directed the Allahabad High Court to examine the allegations and take appropriate remedial action.

Pursuant to that direction, a vigilance inquiry was conducted, and the resulting report was placed before the Supreme Court in a sealed cover. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Allahabad High Court, informed the Bench that the report had been sent directly to the Supreme Court and had not been placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court.

The Bench directed that the report be sent to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for an appropriate decision.

The Court also clarified that the report was to be dealt with in terms of its September 22 order and indicated that the Chief Justice would take the appropriate decision.

The Court was informed that substantial progress had been made in the trial, with 86 out of 131 witnesses already examined, including around 56 eyewitnesses. Only 27 witnesses remained to be examined.

The State’s counsel also sought to explain the circumstances surrounding the present Public Prosecutor. It was submitted that the prosecutor had around 16 years of experience, had served as a District Government Counsel and had exclusive criminal-law experience. The State nevertheless informed the Court that a more senior prosecutor had been recommended.

It was submitted that the present prosecutor had examined 31 witnesses and that only three witnesses had been discharged during the intervening period. Counsel submitted that one of those witnesses had died, while two others had not been named in the chargesheet and their statements under Section 161 CrPC were not available.

The Bench said it was not making any adverse observation against anyone at this stage and emphasised that its concern was that the trial should proceed smoothly.