The Supreme Court on Monday directed that a 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.

The development came during the hearing of the bail matter concerning former Union Minister Ajay Mishra's son, Ashish Mishra, who is an accused in the case. In the earlier hearing, the victims, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, had raised doubts about the Presiding Officer as well as the Prosecutor.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, appearing for the Allahabad High Court, informed a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana that the report of the Vigilance Officer of the High Court had been sent directly to the Supreme Court.

Dwivedi pointed out that the Supreme Court had earlier directed that the vigilance report be placed before it in a sealed cover. He requested that the report be sent to the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice.

The Court's ordered :

"The report sent by the Vigilance Officer of the Allahabad High Court shall be placed before the Chief Justice for an appropriate decision in terms of paragraph 3 of our order dated September 22, 2026."

UP Proposes Appointment Of New Special Public Prosecutor

On the issue of the Special Public Prosecutor conducting the trial, the Uttar Pradesh government informed the Court that a new prosecutor had been proposed and recommended.

Advocate Ruchira Goel for the State said that the proposed prosecutor has 16 years of experience, had served as a District Government Counsel and has exclusive criminal law experience.

The Court recorded that, according to the State Government's report, after due consultation with the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, the appointment of a new Special Public Prosecutor had been proposed and recommended. The State Government will take an appropriate decision on the appointment.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the accused Ashish Mishra, objected to the change of the Public Prosecutor and said that repeated allegations had been made against the presiding judge and the prosecutor since the commencement of the trial.

"There has been a doubt cast since this trial started by the other side. On every occasion, there is a limit to how much. Aspersions have been cast on the presiding officer and on the Public Prosecutor," Dave submitted.

He said the prosecutor had acted pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions and that the trial had progressed pursuant to orders passed by the Court directing that witnesses who were present be examined.

"If the vigilance report clears the presiding judge of the allegations that have been made, they should be taken seriously," Dave submitted.

He alleged that attempts to change the Public Prosecutor midway could amount to indirect pressure on the presiding officer.

"This is not the manner in which a criminal trial is conducted, by changing the Public Prosecutor midway," he said.

CJI Surya Kant observed that directions issued by the Supreme Court to expedite a trial can sometimes be viewed differently at the ground level.

The CJI clarified that the vigilance inquiry was an exercise under the applicable rules and that the competent judicial authority would take an appropriate decision.

Dave also informed the Court that 86 witnesses had already been examined, including a large number of eyewitnesses. He said the existing Public Prosecutor had performed well and that the trial had progressed because of the Supreme Court's directions.

"I have no say as an accused as to who the Public Prosecutor should be or who the presiding officer should be," Dave submitted.

On the last date, the Court forwarded to the Allahabad High Court an application filed by the complainant levelling allegations against the trial judge and raising concerns about the change in Public Prosecutor. While sending the application to the High Court for appropriate action, the bench orally asked the State of UP to ensure that a senior PP was entrusted with prosecuting the case.

The case pertains to the killing of 8 persons in October 2021, after vehicles allegedly linked to Mishra's convoy ran over 4 protesting farmers during the agitation against the farm laws. Mishra is the son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra.

In January 2023, the Supreme Court granted Mishra interim bail for 8 weeks, which was extended from time to time. The order came with a slew of conditions and it was later made absolute. The Court permitted Mishra to stay either in Delhi or Lucknow, UP.

As per his bail conditions, Mishra could not enter Lakhimpur Kheri except for attending the trial. However, in May 2025, the Court allowed Mishra to visit Lakhimpur Kheri every Saturday evening to spend time with family, subject to the condition that returned to Lucknow on Sunday evening. It added that while in Lakhimpur Kheri, Mishra must not participate in any public meeting or political activities and that the visit shall be private only for the family members.

In November, 2024, the Court also sought Mishra's response on allegations of threatening witnesses in the case. In January 2025, it directed Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the allegations. In August, the Court directed Uttar Pradesh police to verify allegations and take necessary action on the witness intimidation complaint. The UP police registered an FIR but found no evidence to suggest that Mishra was involved in the alleged witness intimidation.

In May this year, the Court expressed disappointment over the slow pace of trial in the case, particularly the non-production of witnesses for examination over two months, and directed the trial court to take lawful measures to secure their presence while also ensuring compliance with the witness protection scheme.