Additional District and Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar has alleged that serious criminal cases were withdrawn from his court to benefit mafias and gangsters, making the claim in a judgment that awarded the death penalty to a man convicted of murdering his wife.
The remarks were made on Monday, September 7, 2026, and drew attention after legal publications reported the judgment the following day. The judge said he was deeply hurt by the withdrawal of cases and would rather die than be known as a cowardly judge.
His allegations follow an administrative order issued in August transferring 97 serious criminal cases from his court. The reasons behind that decision and the judge’s claims of improper influence have not been independently established.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
Death Sentence in Wife’s Murder Case
The remarks came while Judge Diwakar was delivering judgment in a case involving the death of a woman named Shahzadi.
The court convicted her husband, Nadeem, of setting her on fire over dowry demands. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on July 23, 2018, and the victim was 23 years old.
The court found the circumstances exceptionally grave and awarded Nadeem the death penalty. It also imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh, according to government counsel Kuldeep Kumar.
The judgment reportedly relied on the victim’s dying declaration, among other evidence. A dying declaration is a statement made by a person about the circumstances of their death, which may be admitted as evidence under the applicable legal rules.
The conviction and sentence remain subject to the judicial process, including the mandatory High Court scrutiny required for a death sentence.
Judge Says He Will Not Work Under Criminal Pressure
In the judgment, Diwakar expressed concern about the withdrawal of serious cases from his court and the alleged influence of criminals.
He said he would not discharge his judicial duties under pressure from mafias, gangsters or other offenders. He also stated that his parents had taught him to fear God and no one else.
The judge’s most widely reported remark was that he would prefer death to being called a coward judge.
He claimed that the withdrawal of cases had caused him deep distress and suggested that the action was intended to benefit powerful criminal interests. However, he did not publicly disclose the complete information on which he based that allegation, citing the dignity of his office.
The allegation is serious, but it remains a claim made by the judge. No independent inquiry finding or judicial determination establishing improper motive has been reported.
Why Were 97 Cases Transferred?
On August 20, reports emerged that 97 pending cases involving murder and other serious offences had been withdrawn from Diwakar’s court.
The administrative order was issued by Muzaffarnagar District and Sessions Judge Virendra Kumar Singh. The cases included offences punishable with life imprisonment or death.
Administrative transfer of cases is a recognised part of court management. A District Judge may allocate or reassign cases according to the powers and procedures governing the district judiciary.
Such a transfer does not, by itself, establish interference or misconduct. The central issue in this controversy is the judge’s allegation that the decision was motivated by an intention to protect criminals.
The complete administrative order and its reasons were not available for independent examination. Without those records or an official response, the motive cannot be stated as fact.
Twenty-Three Death Sentences in Eleven Cases
Diwakar has attracted attention for the number of capital sentences awarded by his court in recent months.
Government counsel Kuldeep Kumar said that, following the September 7 judgment, the court had sentenced 23 convicts to death in 11 cases during approximately four months.
Earlier reports had recorded 22 death sentences before the latest judgment. The figures refer to sentences awarded by the trial court, not executions.
The distinction matters because a death sentence pronounced by a Sessions Court does not become executable immediately. It must be confirmed by the High Court, and the convict has further legal remedies.
The number of death sentences alone cannot establish whether a judge’s decisions are legally correct or incorrect. Each case must be assessed on its evidence, reasoning and compliance with the law.
What Is the ‘Rarest of Rare’ Standard?
Indian law permits the death penalty for certain serious offences, but courts must apply strict safeguards.
The Supreme Court’s “rarest of rare” doctrine requires judges to consider whether the death penalty is justified in the particular circumstances and whether life imprisonment would be an inadequate alternative.
The court must examine the nature of the crime, the circumstances of the offender and relevant mitigating factors. Capital punishment is not intended to be an automatic response to every serious murder.
Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, a death sentence passed by a Sessions Court must be submitted to the High Court for confirmation. The High Court may confirm the sentence, alter it, order further inquiry or take other action permitted by law.
This process provides an additional layer of judicial scrutiny before a sentence can be carried out.
Earlier Threats and Security Concerns
Diwakar has previously been associated with the Gyanvapi mosque survey proceedings while serving in Varanasi.
In 2022, he ordered a video survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex. The proceedings drew national attention and were followed by reports of threats against him.
More recent reporting states that the judge has raised concerns about his security arrangements and sought protection from senior authorities.
The available material does not establish that the August case transfers were connected to those earlier threats or to the Gyanvapi proceedings. Any such connection would require separate evidence.
Judicial Independence and Administrative Accountability
The controversy raises two distinct questions: whether a judge is facing improper pressure, and whether the administrative transfer of cases was carried out for legitimate reasons.
Judicial independence requires judges to decide cases without intimidation or external influence. At the same time, administrative decisions within the judiciary must be assessed through the proper institutional process.
If a judge alleges that case allocation has been manipulated to benefit criminal interests, the claim warrants careful examination by the appropriate judicial authorities.
That examination should consider the transfer order, the reasons recorded for it, the nature of the cases reassigned and any evidence supporting the allegation of improper influence.
The reported remarks should not be treated as proof that the District Judge or any other official acted improperly. Nor should the allegations be dismissed solely because they concern an internal administrative decision.
What this means for you: A trial court’s death sentence is not final until it undergoes the required High Court process. Similarly, transferring a criminal case from one court to another does not mean the accused has been acquitted or the prosecution has ended. The important public-interest question is whether case allocation decisions are transparent, lawful and free from improper influence.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/policetechnology/
