A judge in Uttar Pradesh who handed down 23 death sentences in six months has been transferred to a family court in Muzaffarnagar. The move was made on Allahabad High Court orders, according to a report datelined Lucknow and published October 25, 2026.

The judge is Ravi Kumar Diwakar, an additional district and sessions judge who was serving in a fast-track court. Between April and September this year, he sentenced 23 people to death across 11 cases related to murder. His rulings drew criticism, and the High Court then moved him out of the fast-track court.

A transfer with an unexplained trigger

Diwakar has been appointed additional principal judge of the family court in Muzaffarnagar. Shiva Kumari will take charge of the fast-track court as additional district and sessions judge, under the High Court’s order.

The report does not state what prompted the High Court’s decision beyond the criticism that followed the death sentences. That gap is what has drawn attention to the case. The same report also details a separate clash between Diwakar and the court administration, which makes the timing hard to ignore.

The fight over 97 withdrawn cases

In August, Diwakar’s predecessor, district and sessions judge B.K. Singh, issued administrative orders that pulled 97 partly heard cases from the court. Those cases included murder and other serious crimes. Diwakar recently questioned that move.

He also acquitted an accused in an NDPS case that was about 10 years old. In the process, he raised a broader question about the limits of administrative power in the judiciary.

Can cases in which trial has already begun be withdrawn through administrative orders without following the procedure prescribed by law?

That question, as reported from his 35-page judgment, goes to the heart of the matter. Diwakar also expressed concern about the independence of the judiciary and about the limits on the administrative powers that district judges exercise.

Two stories, one courtroom

On one side is a judge whose rapid string of death sentences made him a name in the court system. On the other is a judge who objected to how cases were being taken away from his own docket. The report presents both threads without linking them through any official explanation.

What is clear is the sequence. Sentences were criticised, the High Court acted, and the judge who had challenged the withdrawal of 97 cases was moved to a family court. Whether the transfer is administrative routine or a direct response to his rulings is not something the available reporting settles.

For now, the 23 death sentences remain the headline figure, and the questions about how cases are assigned, withdrawn and reviewed are the ones that will keep this story moving.