Back
UP Judge Ravi Diwakar: Recall of 97 Murder Cases
In a sharply worded 35-page judgment, Additional District and Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar of Muzaffarnagar has declared the recall of 97 murder and other serious criminal cases from his court as being “.” The order, passed by the then District Judge just 13 days before his retirement and without any recorded reasons, has ignited a debate over the limits of administrative authority within the judiciary and the principle of judicial accountability.
Judge Diwakar, who has handed down 23 death sentences in 10 cases over the past four months, acquitted an accused in a decade-old case on . But nearly half of his judgment is devoted to a meticulous legal analysis of the recall orders, raising fundamental questions about whether a judicial officer must comply with an administrative direction that is contrary to law.
“But now the question arises that a judge’s work is to do justice and if injustice is done to the same judge, then where will he go?” Diwakar remarked, capturing the existential dilemma of a subordinate judge caught between institutional hierarchy and legal propriety.
Background: A Judge Who Drew Attention
Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar joined the in and has served in districts including Sultanpur, Budaun, Varanasi, and Bareilly before being posted to Muzaffarnagar in . He first gained national prominence in when, as a civil judge in Varanasi, he ordered a videographic survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex—a decision that drew threats and widespread media coverage.
In Muzaffarnagar, between April and July 2026, Diwakar sentenced 17 people to death across seven separate murder trials, eventually awarding 23 death sentences in total. This unusually high rate of capital punishment brought him under scrutiny, and on , the then District Judge of Muzaffarnagar issued nine identical orders “recalling” 97 cases—most involving murder charges under —from Diwakar’s fast-track court to his own court.
The recall came without any explanation, and the orders merely used the word “recall” without stating why the cases were being moved. Judge Diwakar noted that the timing—just 13 days before the District Judge’s retirement—added to the suspicion of arbitrary action.
Legal Analysis: Section 409 CrPC and the Recall Power
The core of Judge Diwakar’s legal reasoning rests on , which corresponds to . He observed that a Sessions Judge can recall a case made over to an Additional Sessions Judge only before the trial or hearing has commenced. Once the trial has begun and the matter becomes “,” the power of recall under this provision is extinguished.
“The provisions under CrPC and BNSS provide that the sessions judge cannot recall ‘’ files,” Diwakar wrote. He therefore concluded that the August 18 orders were “contrary to law, i.e., .”
He also distinguished the power to recall under Section 409 from the power to transfer cases under . While Section 408 allows a Sessions Judge to transfer a criminal case from one court to another within the sessions division—even after trial has commenced—such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Relying on the ’s judgment in , Diwakar stressed that a transfer must be based on “a proper and justifiable basis” and that the circumstances must disclose “a real and reasonable apprehension of failure or .”
He noted that the recall orders in his case used the word “recall” rather than “transfer,” but even if they were treated as transfer orders, they lacked any justification. The orders were “non-speaking,” violating the mandate of that judicial orders must record reasons.
The and Speaking Orders
Judge Diwakar’s judgment goes beyond the narrow legal question of recall and delves into broader principles of transparency, accountability, and the . He quoted Lord Acton’s famous observation: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Explaining the principle, Diwakar wrote that when checks on power disappear, a person may begin to consider himself above law and morality.
“A public servant cannot behave like kings and he will have to give reasons for each of his orders, that is, the order should be a . There should be transparency in the system,” he observed. He emphasized that in criminal cases, victims and complainants have a right to know why serious cases, including murder cases, are transferred from one court to another.
The judge also reflected on the nature of institutional power: “The strength of an institution lies not merely in the power wielded by individuals, but in the limits that keep even powerful persons subject to law, discretion and accountability.” He warned that when a person begins to believe that no one can question their decisions, “arrogance begins in place of justice” and “justice slowly becomes silent.”
The NDPS Acquittal and Judicial Delay
The immediate case before Judge Diwakar was the acquittal of Ashok Bharti under . The accused was arrested in with 150 grams of charas, but the trial dragged on for nearly a decade. The prosecution failed to present credible witnesses despite the recovery being made in a public place. In acquitting the accused, Diwakar remarked that spending ten years going through courts is itself a form of punishment.
He referenced the famous dialogue “Tarikh Par Tarikh” from the 1993 Hindi film Damini to highlight how repeated adjournments cause mental trauma to an innocent person. The slow pace of the judicial system, he said, undermines the very purpose of justice.
Implications for Judicial Independence and Accountability
Judge Diwakar’s judgment raises profound questions for the legal community. First, it challenges the notion that administrative orders from a superior judge must be obeyed without question. He asked: “if a Sessions Judge or District Judge passes an administrative order which is ‘’, is the concerned judicial officer legally bound to comply with it?” And if the order is illegal, can the officer refuse to comply?
These questions strike at the heart of judicial hierarchy and independence. While subordinate judges operate under the administrative control of the District Judge, the law does not require blind obedience to orders that exceed legal authority. Diwakar’s judgment suggests that a judicial officer has a duty to uphold the law, even if it means questioning a superior’s order.
Second, the judgment underscores the need for transparency in administrative decisions. The recall of 97 murder cases without any recorded reasons undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Victims and accused alike are entitled to understand why their cases are being moved.
Finally, Diwakar’s observations on power and accountability serve as a reminder that no public servant—including a judge—is above the law. The demands that every exercise of power be justified, reasoned, and subject to scrutiny.
Conclusion
Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar’s judgment is a remarkable document that combines rigorous legal analysis with a philosophical meditation on justice. By questioning the recall of 97 cases and asserting that the orders were , he has not only defended his own judicial independence but also laid down a marker for the broader principles that govern the judiciary.
Whether his view will be upheld on appeal or by a higher court remains to be seen. But his words resonate: “The moment a person begins to believe that no question can be raised above his decision, arrogance begins in place of justice.” For legal professionals, this judgment is a powerful reminder that justice must begin at home.
