A district and sessions judge in Uttar Pradesh has ordered the recall of 97 pending murder case files after an internal review raised concerns about the unusually high number of death sentences he has handed down. The move follows the judge’s issuance of 22 capital punishment orders in a span of four months, a rate that has drawn scrutiny from senior judicial authorities. The recalled files are now being reassigned to other judges for reassessment, a step that underscores the need for rigorous oversight in capital‑punishment cases.
What Happened
Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar, who has presided over murder trials in the Agra district, directed the withdrawal of 97 case files from his court on May 12, 2026. The recall was announced after an internal audit of his docket revealed that he had issued 22 death sentences in the preceding four months, bringing his career total to 35 capital‑punishment verdicts. A senior judicial official explained that the court’s decision was “to ensure procedural fairness and transparency in the handling of these cases.” No specific allegations of misconduct or procedural violations have been publicly disclosed, but the recall signals that the judiciary is taking steps to review the judge’s sentencing patterns.
Why It Matters
The death penalty remains a legally sanctioned punishment for murder in India, but its application is subject to strict guidelines set by the Supreme Court. In 2015, the Court ruled that the death penalty must be imposed only after all other alternatives have been exhausted and only in “exceptional” cases. The Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling on the death penalty for terrorism and the 2023 directive that death sentences be reviewed within 90 days of conviction further tighten the legal framework.
In this context, a judge issuing 22 death sentences in a single four‑month period raises questions about adherence to those guidelines. The recall of the files allows for a fresh examination of whether the sentences were warranted under the Supreme Court’s criteria, whether proper due process was observed, and whether any systemic biases may have influenced the judge’s decisions. The case also highlights the importance of internal judicial oversight mechanisms, especially in courts that handle capital‑punishment cases.
Background and Context
Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state, accounts for a significant share of the country’s murder trials and death‑penalty cases. District and sessions courts are the first tier of the criminal justice system where capital‑punishment
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Times of India – Top Stories — source
