The recent remarks of Additional District and Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar of Muzaffarnagar belong to that category.While sentencing a man to death for burning his wife alive, Judge Diwakar spoke of threats allegedly received from criminal elements and expressed his refusal to allow fear to dictate the functioning of the court. His message was stark: he would rather face death than earn the reputation of a cowardly judge. He also raised concerns about his security and about serious cases being taken away from his court.
Whatever one’s views on an individual judgment or on capital punishment, there is something profoundly important in a judge declaring that the authority of law cannot be subordinated to the threats of mafias, gangsters or other powerful interests.
That principle deserves to be defended. Justice cannot operate under intimidation. A judge is not supposed to be brave in the manner of a soldier or a political activist. Judicial courage is of a different kind.
A judge sits alone,or with colleagues,between the State and the citizen, between the victim and the accused, between competing claims and conflicting interests. His authority does not come from physical power. It comes from the Constitution, the law and public confidence in the judicial process.
If a judge begins to wonder whether a particular order will provoke a gangster, politician, wealthy litigant or organised criminal network, the damage is not confined to that judge. The entire justice system is weakened.This is why Judge Diwakar’s latest statement merits serious attention. He has alleged that he received threats and that serious cases were removed from his court. These are matters that should be independently examined by the appropriate judicial and administrative authorities. They should neither be dismissed casually nor treated as proven without investigation.
The proper institutional response to allegations of intimidation should be investigation, protection and transparency,not silence.
From Varanasi to Muzaffarnagar
Judge Diwakar is not new to controversy or public attention. In 2022, while serving as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Varanasi, he passed the order permitting a videographic survey of the Gyanvapi complex. The order catapulted him into the national spotlight at a time when the Gyanvapi dispute had already become another most politically and communally sensitive legal controversies.
After joining the Uttar Pradesh judicial service in 2009, he served in different judicial assignments before moving into the Higher Judicial Service. He is now serving as an Additional District and Sessions Judge at a fast-track court in Muzaffarnagar.
23 Death Sentences and a Question for Justice System
According to recent reports, Judge Diwakar’s court has sentenced 22 people to death in 10 cases over roughly four months, and he has since awarded another death sentence, taking the reported total to 23.The cases have involved grave crimes, including murder and other offences carrying the possibility of capital punishment. There is a natural temptation to interpret such a record simply as evidence of a judge’s toughness.
The death penalty is the most irreversible punishment known to the criminal justice system. A trial court’s decision is therefore only one stage in the legal process. Under the Indian law, a death sentence imposed by a sessions court cannot be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. This safeguard is essential.
A judge must be equally fearless in acquitting an accused if the prosecution has failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Judicial courage is not synonymous with maximum punishment.Judicial courage means applying the law faithfully, whatever the consequences.
The Transfer of 97 Cases
The controversy acquired another dimension when 97 pending murder and serious-crime cases were transferred from Judge Diwakar’s court following his extraordinary run of capital sentences.The transfer itself should not automatically be described as punishment or interference. Judicial administration routinely involves redistribution of cases for legitimate reasons. But the timing has understandably attracted public attention.
Judge Diwakar has himself connected the removal of cases with the larger question of judicial independence. Reports of his recent sentencing order say that he raised allegations concerning pressure from criminal elements and suggested that attempts were being made to influence the functioning of his court.
That is precisely why the matter deserves an institutional examination. If the transfer was purely administrative, the authorities should be able to explain that clearly. If there were genuine security or administrative reasons, those too should be placed on record. And if a judge’s allegations of intimidation have substance, the matter becomes far more serious.No democracy can afford a situation in which criminals believe they can influence which judge hears their cases.
A Judge’s Biography
The man behind the headlines has had a long judicial career.Ravi Kumar Diwakar entered the Uttar Pradesh judicial service in 2009, beginning his career as an Additional Civil Judge in Azamgarh. He subsequently served indifferent judicial postings, including assignments in Sultanpur, Budaun, Varanasi and Bareilly, before moving into the Higher Judicial Service.His public profile increased dramatically after his 2022 Gyanvapi-related order in Varanasi. He has since become one of the more recognisable subordinate-court judges in Uttar Pradesh.
His career, however, has not been without criticism.In 2024, the Allahabad High Court reportedly expunged certain observations made by him in an order concerning the 2010 Bareilly riots case, including remarks concerning Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. The episode is worth remembering because judicial independence has another indispensable companion: judicial restraint.
A judge should be independent of political powerbut that independence is best demonstrated by keeping political praise and political criticism outside judicial reasoning. Independence means independence from everyone.
A judge must not be intimidated by a gangster. But neither should a judge be influenced by the government. He must not fear the mob.But neither should he decide cases to satisfy the mob. He must not bend before the wealthy.But neither should he become an instrument of popular anger against the wealthy.He must not discriminate against an accused because of religion, caste, social status or political identity. And he must not acquit someone merely because public opinion favours acquittal.
The true test of judicial independence is independence from every form of pressure.This is why the courage displayed by Judge Diwakar should be appreciated within a constitutional framework rather than converted into a personality cult.India does not need ‘hero judges’. India needs constitutional judges.
The Importance of Protecting Judges
Judge Diwakar’s allegations should therefore lead to a larger institutional conversation.Are judicial officers adequately protected? Do trial judges dealing with organised crime receive appropriate security assessments? Can powerful accused persons manipulate the judicial process through threats or influence? Are case transfers transparent enough to prevent suspicion?
And when a judicial officer makes a serious allegation of intimidation, who investigates it? These questions are not about Ravi Kumar Diwakar alone. They concern every magistrate and sessions judge in the country.
Courage Must Be Accompanied by Due Process
There is another point that deserves emphasis. The fight against crime cannot become a fight against due process.A society traumatised by murder, rape, kidnapping or organised crime naturally demands severe punishment. That demand is understandable. But the rule of law is most meaningful precisely when emotions are running high. The criminal justice system must punish the guiltybut it must also protect the innocent.
That is why the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the death penalty has insisted on the exceptional nature of capital punishment. Every death sentence therefore deserves painstaking scrutiny.The reported number of death sentences pronounced by Judge Diwakar is striking. It should prompt neither automatic applause nor automatic condemnation. It should prompt careful judicial review.
The strength of a judge is not measured by how often higher courts agree with him. It is measured by whether he honestly applies the law and accepts the authority of appellate review.If a judge is threatened because he is hearing a case against powerful criminals, the threat is not merely against an individual. It is an assault on the authority of the Republic.
Neither Fear nor Favour
Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar’s words, therefore, deserve to be read in their larger context.His career has included decisions that generated intense controversy. Some of his observations have attracted criticism and judicial correction. His recent record of capital punishment is unusually high and will inevitably invite scrutiny. His allegations concerning threats and case transfers also require proper institutional examination.
It would be to ensure that no judge in India ever has to choose between personal safety and judicial duty. A republic in which judges are afraid cannot remain a republic governed by law.Judge Diwakar’s declaration has reminded the country of that basic truth. The law may be imperfect. The judge may be imperfect. Institutions may be imperfect. But justice must never be surrendered to fear.