📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Original: Sachinghai09
Derivative work: Radomian
Crime
Uttar Pradesh Judge’s 100 Murder Cases Shifted After Sentencing 22 to Death
✍️ NDTV
🗓 20 Aug 2026, 09:40 AM
👁 5
A Uttar Pradesh judge who handed down death sentences to 22 defendants in four months has had 100 murder cases transferred away from his docket, officials said.
A judge of the Uttar Pradesh trial courts has seen a massive reassignment of his criminal docket, with 100 murder cases moved to other benches, authorities confirmed. The judge gained nationwide attention after imposing capital punishment on 22 accused individuals within a span of four months.
The transfer order was issued by the state’s higher judiciary, which cited the need to redistribute the workload and ensure that ongoing investigations are not compromised by the judge’s recent sentencing spree. The 100 cases, spanning various districts of the state, will now be heard by different judges appointed by the court administration.
Legal experts note that such a large-scale case shift is unusual but permissible under Indian procedural law when a judge’s involvement in high‑profile verdicts could affect the impartiality or efficiency of pending trials. The move is expected to allow the re‑assigned courts to proceed without the heightened scrutiny that accompanied the death‑penalty rulings.
The transfer order was issued by the state’s higher judiciary, which cited the need to redistribute the workload and ensure that ongoing investigations are not compromised by the judge’s recent sentencing spree. The 100 cases, spanning various districts of the state, will now be heard by different judges appointed by the court administration.
Legal experts note that such a large-scale case shift is unusual but permissible under Indian procedural law when a judge’s involvement in high‑profile verdicts could affect the impartiality or efficiency of pending trials. The move is expected to allow the re‑assigned courts to proceed without the heightened scrutiny that accompanied the death‑penalty rulings.