Judicial Transfer Controversy: UP Judge Questions Legitimacy of Case Movements
In a recent development within the judicial corridors of Uttar Pradesh, Additional Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar has once again raised concerns regarding the transfer of nearly 100 criminal cases from his court by the Muzaffarnagar District and Sessions Judge. This move has sparked significant debate, particularly as Judge Diwakar has gained attention for delivering 23 death sentences in 11 cases over the past five months.
The transfer, which took place in August, involved 97 murder cases being reassigned from Judge Diwakar’s jurisdiction. He expressed concerns that these actions might favor criminal elements, including gangsters and the mafia. In his recent verdict on Thursday, Judge Diwakar asserted that the decision made by the District and Sessions Judge was not only contrary to legal principles but also lacked proper jurisdiction.
Judge Diwakar posed a critical question: “The work of a judge is to dispense justice. If injustice occurs to a judge, where should he seek redress? Is a judge, who operates under the administrative control of a District Judge, obligated to accept orders that contradict the law and lack jurisdiction?”
The controversy intensifies as the transfer orders were signed by the District and Sessions Judge just 13 days before his retirement on August 18, without providing any explicit rationale. Judge Diwakar highlighted that while the law empowers a District and Sessions Judge to transfer cases, such powers must be exercised with judicial justification.
He elaborated, “If a substantial number of serious case files are withdrawn or transferred from any court, it is insufficient to merely state ‘the Sessions Judge has power.’ The legal grounds and circumstances justifying the exercise of that power are separate and crucial considerations.”
Judge Diwakar further emphasized that India is governed by the rule of law, not by the arbitrary actions of public officials. “A public servant cannot conduct themselves like monarchs. They must provide reasons for their orders, ensuring that each order is a ‘speaking order,'” he concluded.
