Additional District and Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar of Muzaffarnagar made strong observations in a judgment delivered on September 7, 2026, wherein he awarded the death penalty to Nadeem for burning his wife Shahzadi alive. The judge described the manner of killing as “extremely brutal and barbaric” and held it to fall within the “rarest of rare” category, justifying the capital sentence.
In the 38-page judgment, Judge Diwakar expressed personal distress over the recall of case files from his court. He stated that he was “deeply hurt and saddened” by the conduct of those responsible for withdrawing the cases. He alleged that the recall was intended to “save mafias/gangsters/criminals” and emphasized that he possessed full knowledge of the reasons behind the action but considered it inappropriate to disclose them at that juncture, citing “the dignity of the office.”
The judge noted that as many as 97 pending cases involving murder and other serious offences were recalled from his court the previous month. This followed a period of four months during which he had awarded 22 death sentences across 10 different cases. He linked the timing of the recalls to his recent sentencing pattern, suggesting a possible connection.
Judge Diwakar alleged that after the withdrawal of case files, a message was conveyed to him through “a mafia/gangster from the west.” According to him, the message indicated that only the case files had been initially removed and warned that if he pursued the matter or commented publicly, influence would be used to get his court changed or have him transferred out of the district, citing “contacts at higher levels.”
He further stated that major mafias and strongmen in western Uttar Pradesh enjoy caste and political protection, with networks extending “quite high and far.” This, he argued, enables them to exert undue influence over judicial processes.
On judicial independence, the judge remarked that he would “rather die than be called a coward judge.” He said his parents had taught him to fear God and no other person, and that yielding to fear of bahubalis, mafias, or criminals would conflict with public expectations of judges as impartial and fearless arbiters of justice. He asserted that as long as he held office, the authority to decide judgments would remain solely his.
Judge Diwakar linked judicial independence to the rule of law and democracy, observing that it constitutes a “serious crisis” when judges are unable to administer justice due to fear, pressure, or influence from mafias or criminals. He warned that such a scenario leads to the collapse of the social and legal system, allowing criminals to become fearless while the weak and innocent are made scapegoats.
He cautioned that where mafia influence becomes dominant, the rule of law could be replaced by “might is right,” thereby weakening democratic foundations. He added that such an environment could discourage domestic and foreign investment, adversely impacting economic development.
Emphasizing equality before the law, the judge stated: “In the eyes of law, all persons are equal. The same law cannot be applied differently to two persons.” He questioned whether mafias, strongmen, and criminals should effectively operate under a different legal regime than ordinary citizens.
Concluding on the societal importance of justice, Judge Diwakar observed that “today, the world needs justice more than charity” and that “in the absence of justice, freedom has no meaning.” He noted that while people may accept strict rules, they object when justice is applied unequally—when it is given to one person but denied to another under similar circumstances.
The judgment reflects the judge’s concern over external pressures on judicial functioning and his resolve to uphold judicial independence despite alleged attempts to influence outcomes through the recall of cases.