A district judge in Uttar Pradesh sentenced 22 people to death across 10 criminal cases between April and August 2024 [1, 3].
The volume of capital sentences delivered by a single judge in such a short window has raised questions about the application of India's strict sentencing guidelines. Legal observers are now scrutinizing whether these cases truly meet the high threshold required for the death penalty.
Justice Ravi Kumar Diwakar, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Muzaffarnagar, began this series of sentencings on April 6, 2024 [2]. On that first day, Diwakar sentenced three convicts to death for the murder of advocate Sameer Saifi [2].
The sentences were handed down as part of a broader crackdown on crime within the region [2]. To justify the death penalty, Indian courts typically rely on the "rarest of rare" doctrine, which mandates that capital punishment be reserved only for crimes of exceptional brutality, or cruelty [2].
Diwakar has previously gained public attention for his role in the Gyanvapi survey case [1]. His current record of 22 death sentences [1] across 10 distinct cases [3] has placed his judicial approach under renewed spotlight.
The concentration of these rulings in Muzaffarnagar has prompted a wider discussion on judicial consistency. While the state government maintains a hardline stance on violent crime, the frequency of these orders invites scrutiny from human rights advocates and legal scholars regarding the proportionality of the punishments.
“A district judge in Uttar Pradesh sentenced 22 people to death across 10 criminal cases.”
The 'rarest of rare' doctrine is intended to limit the death penalty to the most extreme crimes to prevent arbitrary application. When a single judge issues a high volume of capital sentences in a short period, it often leads to increased appeals in higher courts, which must then determine if the trial court's interpretation of 'exceptional brutality' aligns with national judicial precedents.
