The Death Sentence Judge: A Flashpoint in India’s Judicial System

The recent spate of death sentences handed down by Additional District and Sessions Judge Ravi Kumar Diwakar has ignited a fiery debate about the application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine in Indian jurisprudence. In just four months, Diwakar has sentenced 22 convicts to death, sparking intense scrutiny of his record on capital punishment cases.

Diwakar’s tenure as a judge has been marked by controversy from the outset. His order for a videographic survey of the Gyanvapi mosque complex in Varanasi in 2022 sparked widespread protests and raised questions about the independence of the judiciary. The discovery of a cylindrical object, allegedly a Shivling, in the wuzukhana only added fuel to the fire.

Critics argue that Diwakar’s death sentences are not just excessive but also unjustly applied. A lawyer who wished to remain anonymous noted that awarding a death sentence should be done with great deliberation and care, taking into account the sanctity of the “rarest of rare” principle. However, in Diwakar’s court, this caution seems to be being thrown out the window.

On the other hand, Muzaffarnagar-based prison rights activist Nadir Rana sees the verdicts as a welcome respite for families of victims who have long struggled to find justice in India’s creaky judicial system. “The verdicts have given them a sense of closure and strengthened their faith in the judiciary,” he said.

However, Diwakar’s record raises concerns about the consistency of capital punishment in India. The “rarest of rare” doctrine, introduced in 1980 by the Supreme Court, is meant to be applied only in exceptional cases where the gravity of the crime is matched by an equally compelling mitigating circumstance. In practice, its application can be woefully inconsistent.

The fact that every death sentence passed by Diwakar must be sent to the high court for confirmation and cannot be carried out unless ratified suggests a built-in check on his powers. Nevertheless, Diwakar’s approach has become a lightning rod for controversy, and his future on the bench hangs precariously in the balance.

As India grapples with the complexities of its judicial system, Diwakar’s record serves as a stark reminder of the fine line between justice and vengeance. The debate about capital punishment in Indian society will likely continue to rage, with Diwakar’s approach sparking a much-needed discussion about the role of judges in meting out punishment.

In this ongoing drama, one thing is certain: Ravi Kumar Diwakar has become a symbol of the contradictions that plague India’s judiciary. His record and that of the judicial system as a whole hang precariously in the balance, awaiting the outcome of this high-stakes controversy.