New Delhi | February 18, 2026
LENTIS LEGALIS BREAKING

The Supreme Court of India has allowed applications seeking permission to file Review Petition(s) in a long-pending matter arising out of Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989. Importantly, applications requesting that the Review Petition be listed in open court with oral hearing have also been allowed, recognizing the significance of the issues involved. The review petition has been filed by Advocate Chandrasen Yadav, through Advocate-on-Record Kunal Yadav.

The order was passed by a Bench comprising The Chief Justice of India, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

The Court has issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 26 February 2026, directing them to respond to the Review Petition. The Review Petition has also been tagged with Writ Petition (C) No. 1110 of 2025 (Diary No. 52914 of 2025 – Bhumika Trust) to ensure comprehensive and consistent adjudication of connected issues.

In the Writ Petition (C) No. 1110 of 2025 (Diary No. 52914 of 2025 – Bhumika Trust vs. Union of India), the Supreme Court of India has already invited suggestions from law universities across the country on the issue of mandatory three-year legal practice as a prerequisite for entry into judicial service. With the Review Petitions now permitted and ordered to be heard in open court, the forthcoming hearing will address the wider constitutional, institutional, and practical issues raised both in the Review Petitions and in the writ petition filed by Bhumika Trust, enabling a comprehensive reconsideration of the policy’s impact on law students, judicial recruitment, and access to justice.

The Review Petition assails the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 20 May 2025 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989, challenging the direction mandating three years’ minimum practice at the Bar for entry into the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre. The petitioner, Chandrasen Yadav argues that the decision is unsupported by empirical data, impact studies, or objective evaluation, and rests largely on subjective opinions of certain High Courts while ignoring dissenting views of several States and High Courts. It is contended that no credible evidence establishes that fresh law graduates perform poorly as judges or that prior advocacy experience necessarily enhances judicial competence, particularly when rigorous competitive examinations and structured judicial training exist. The petition further highlights that the judgment selectively overlooks key recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission, earlier binding precedent in All India Judges Association (1993), and the role of institutional training as an alternative to mandatory practice. The uniform, nationwide imposition of the rule is alleged to be arbitrary, exclusionary, and disproportionate, adversely impacting economically weaker sections, SC/ST/OBC candidates, recent graduates, and those working in law firms, PSUs, or corporate roles. It is also argued that the absence of a transitional mechanism, the impractical certificate requirement, and the coercive nature of forcing graduates into litigation practice infringe Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner asserts that by effectively prescribing eligibility norms without legislative backing or inclusive consultation, the ruling raises serious constitutional concerns regarding arbitrariness, equal opportunity, and access to judicial service, warranting reconsideration by the Supreme Court of India.

The matter is now scheduled for further proceedings upon return of notice on 26.02.2026.

Lentis Legalis
New Delhi | February 3, 2026

The Supreme Court Collegium has approved the appointment of five retired judges as ad hoc judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for a period of two years, invoking Article 224A of the Constitution of India.

The decision was taken in the Collegium meeting held on 3rd February, 2026, and was communicated through a resolution titled “Statement dated 3rd February reg. appointment of ad hoc Judges in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.”

As per the Collegium resolution, the following retired judges have been approved for appointment as ad hoc judges:

1. Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan
2. Justice Mohd. Aslam
3. Justice Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi
4. Justice Renu Agarwal
5. Justice Jyotsna Sharma

These appointments are to be made in terms of Article 224A of the Constitution, subject to the consent of the appointees and approval of the President of India.

Article 224A of the Constitution of India empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the prior consent of the President, to request a retired judge of that or any other High Court to sit and act as a judge of the High Court.

While such ad hoc judges enjoy the same jurisdiction, powers, and privileges as regular judges, they are not deemed to be permanent judges of the High Court. Their allowances are determined by a Presidential order, and their appointment is contingent upon their consent.

The provision gained renewed significance following the Supreme Court’s directions in April 2021, issued to address the unprecedented backlog of cases pending before High Courts across the country.

In Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021), the Supreme Court invoked Article 224A and laid down guidelines for appointing ad hoc judges, emphasizing that such appointments should ordinarily be made after genuine efforts to fill regular judicial vacancies.

The Court permitted the use of Article 224A where:

• Vacancies exceeded 20% of sanctioned strength
• Certain categories of cases were pending for over five years
• More than 10% of total pending cases were older than five years
• The disposal rate was lower than the rate of fresh filings

In a later development, the Supreme Court relaxed several conditions imposed in its 2021 ruling, acknowledging the gravity of pendency, particularly in criminal cases.

A special bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant ruled that:

• Chief Justices of High Courts may recommend retired judges for ad hoc appointments
• Each High Court may appoint 2 to 5 ad hoc judges, subject to a ceiling of 10% of the sanctioned strength
• Ad hoc judges shall hear criminal appeals, sitting in benches headed by a serving High Court judge

The Supreme Court also kept in abeyance certain restrictive conditions laid down earlier, including:

• The requirement that vacancies must exceed 20% before ad hoc appointments
• The restriction preventing ad hoc judges from sitting on regular benches

The Court declined to prescribe a fixed timeline for appointments but stressed that the process should begin without delay.

The ruling was prompted by alarming pendency figures, with over 60 lakh cases pending in High Courts nationwide, including nearly 20 lakh criminal appeals.

T

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 10 SCC 635, has authoritatively laid down mandatory procedural safeguards to be followed in cases of alleged police encounters. The Court categorically held that whenever death or grievous injury is caused to the accused in a police encounter, it is imperative that an F.I.R. be registered forthwith and that an independent, impartial, and effective investigation be conducted.

The Apex Court further directed that such investigation must not be carried out by the police personnel involved in the encounter, but should instead be entrusted to the CBCID or a police team of another police station, and in any event, the investigation must be conducted by a police officer of a rank senior to the head of the police party involved in the encounter, so as to ensure transparency, accountability, and public confidence in the rule of law.

These directions, which are binding in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, are expressly contained in Paragraph 31 of the judgment and are extracted hereinbelow-

31. In the light of the above discussion and having regard to the directions issued by the Bombay High Court, guidelines issued by NHRC, suggestions of the appellant PUCL, amicus curiae and the affidavits filed by the Union of India, the State Governments and the Union Territories, we think it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in the matters of investigating police encounters in the cases of death as the standard procedure for thorough, effective and independent investigation:

31.1. Whenever the police is in receipt of any intelligence or tip-off regarding criminal movements or activities pertaining to the commission of grave criminal offence, it shall be reduced into writing in some form (preferably into case diary) or in some electronic form. Such recording need not reveal details of the suspect or the location to which the party is headed. If such intelligence or tip-off is received by a higher authority, the same may be noted in some form without revealing details of the suspect or the location.

31.2. If pursuant to the tip-off or receipt of any intelligence, as above, encounter takes place and firearm is used by the police party and as a result of that, death occurs, an FIR to that effect shall be registered and the same shall be forwarded to the court under Section 157 of CRPC (Now Section – 176 BNSS) without any delay. While forwarding the report under Section 176 BNSS, the procedure prescribed under 176 of the BNSS shall be followed.

31.3. An independent investigation into the incident/encounter shall be conducted by the CID or police team of another police station under the supervision of a senior officer (at least a level above the head of the police party engaged in the encounter). The team conducting inquiry/investigation shall, at a minimum, seek:

(a) To identify the victim; colour photographs of the victim should be taken;

(b) To recover and preserve evidentiary material, including bloodstained earth, hair, fibres and threads, etc. related to the death;

(c) To identify scene witnesses with complete names, addresses and telephone numbers and obtain their statements (including the statements of police personnel involved) concerning the death;

(d) To determine the cause, manner, location (including preparation of rough sketch of topography of the scene and, if possible, photo/video of the scene and any physical evidence) and time of death as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death;

(e) It must be ensured that intact fingerprints of deceased are sent for chemical analysis. Any other fingerprints should be located, developed, lifted and sent for chemical analysis;

(f) Post-mortem must be conducted by two doctors in the district hospital, one of them, as far as possible, should be incharge/head of the district hospital. Post-mortem shall be videographed and preserved;

(g) Any evidence of weapons, such as guns, projectiles, bullets and cartridge cases, should be taken and preserved. Wherever applicable, tests for gunshot residue and trace metal detection should be performed.

(h) The cause of death should be found out, whether it was natural death, accidental death, suicide or homicide.

31.4. A magisterial inquiry under Section 176 of the CRPC (Now 196 BNSS) must invariably be held in all cases of death which occur in the course of police firing and a report thereof must be sent to the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction under Section 190 of the CRPC (Now Section 210).

31.5. The involvement of NHRC is not necessary unless there is serious doubt about independent and impartial investigation. However, the information of the incident without any delay must be sent to NHRC or the State Human Rights Commission, as the case may be.

31.6. The injured criminal/victim should be provided medical aid and his/her statement recorded by the Magistrate or Medical Officer with certificate of fitness.

31.7. It should be ensured that there is no delay in sending FIR, diary entries, panchnamas, sketch, etc. to the court concerned.

31.8. After full investigation into the incident, the report should be sent to the competent court under Section 173 of CRPC (Now Section 193 BNSS). The trial, pursuant to the charge-sheet submitted by the investigating officer, must be concluded expeditiously.

31.9. In the event of death, the next of kin of the alleged criminal/victim must be informed at the earliest.

31.10. Six-monthly statements of all cases where deaths have occurred in police firing must be sent to NHRC by DGPs. It must be ensured that the six-monthly statements reach to NHRC by 15th day of January and July, respectively. The statements may be sent in the following format along with postmortem, inquest and, wherever available, the inquiry reports:

(i) Date and place of occurrence.

(ii) Police station, district.

(iii) Circumstances leading to deaths: (a) Self-defence in encounter. (b) In the course of dispersal of unlawful assembly. (c) In the course of affecting arrest.

(iv) Brief facts of the incident.

(v) Criminal case no.

(vi) Investigating agency.

(vii) Findings of the magisterial inquiry/inquiry by senior officers: (a) disclosing, in particular, names and designation of police officials, if found responsible for the death; and (b) whether use of force was justified and action taken was lawful.

 31.11. If on the conclusion of investigation, the materials/evidence having come on record show that death had occurred by use of firearm amounting to offence under IPC (Now BNS), disciplinary action against such officer must be promptly initiated and he be placed under suspension.

31.12. As regards compensation to be granted to the dependants of the victim who suffered death in a police encounter, the scheme provided under Section 357-A of the CRPC (Now Section 396 of the BNSS dealing with Victim Compensation Scheme) must be applied.

31.13. The police officer(s) concerned must surrender his/her weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis, including any other material, as required by the investigating team, subject to the rights under Article 20 of the Constitution.

31.14. An intimation about the incident must also be sent to the police officer’s family and should the family need services of a lawyer/counselling, same must be offered.

31.15. No out-of-turn promotion or instant gallantry rewards shall be bestowed on the officers concerned soon after the occurrence. It must be ensured at all cost that such rewards are given/recommended only when the gallantry of the officers concerned is established beyond doubt.

31.16. If the family of the victim finds that the above procedure has not been followed or there exists a pattern of abuse or lack of independent investigation or impartiality by any of the functionaries as abovementioned, it may make a complaint to the Sessions Judge having territorial jurisdiction over the place of incident. Upon such complaint being made, the Sessions Judge concerned shall look into the merits of the complaint and address the grievances raised therein.  

These guidelines were framed to strike a constitutional balance between the legitimate powers of the police and the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21, and continue to operate as mandatory law unless modified by the Supreme Court itself.