Nominal Index: [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 1 - 48]Absence Of Written Tenancy Agreement Or Not Furnishing Particulars Of Tenancy Don't Bar Rent Authority Jurisdiction: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Canara Bank Branch Office and 1 other Versus Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 1 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 626 of 2024]Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 1The Allahabad High...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 1 - 48]
Case Title: Canara Bank Branch Office and 1 other Versus Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 1 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 626 of 2024]
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 1
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the rent authority has the jurisdiction to entertain landlord's application for eviction of tenant where no tenancy agreement has been executed and the landlord has also failed to furnish the particulars of tenancy.
Referring to various provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held,
“rent authority constituted under the provisions of the Act of 2021 has jurisdiction to entertain application filed by landlord in cases where tenancy agreement has not been executed, and landlord having failed to intimate particulars of tenancy to the authority.”
Case Title: Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs C.g.o. Complax New Delhi and 4 others v. Vijay Kumar Pandey 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 2 [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 384 of 2025]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 2
A division bench of the Allahabad High Court recently upheld the Single Judge order quashing termination order of a CISF Head Constable who was accused of murder and was incarcerated for a small period on grounds that disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated merely on grounds of his incarceration.
The bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Rajeev Bharti held,
“we are of the opinion that there was absolutely no basis for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and issuance of chargesheet to the respondent/petitioner merely because of his incarceration in respect of a criminal case, nor was there any factual or legal basis for removing the applicant from service on the said count.”
Case Title: Smt. Shahin Begum and 9 others Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 3 [WRIT - C No. - 37032 of 2019]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 3
the Allahabad High Court denied relief to a fair price shop license holder who was using 3 , to illegal withdraw ration of 697 ration cardholders as the petitioner could not demonstrate that ration was actually being distributed to 697 ration cardholders.
While upholding the cancellation of petitioner's fair price shop license, Justice Arun Kumar held
“it is evident that use of three Aadhaar cards to withdraw ration of 697 cardholders has not been reasonably explained by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that 162 affidavits filed by the petitioner, accepting receipt of essential commodities from her, are from 697 cardholders, whose ration has been withdrawn by resorting to interpolation. Even though, 162 cardholders accept receipt of ration regularly, petitioner cannot be obliterated from showing that, the use of three Aadhaar Card numbers for 697 cardholders was not her own volition.”
Case Title: Km. Dimple Singh and 12 others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 4 [WRIT - A No. - 17615 of 2025]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 4
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that experience gained as part-time instructor is not equal to regular teacher's experience and such part-time service will not make candidate eligible for appointment to the post of Headmaster unless specifically provided in law.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,
“if the recruitment rules specifically require teaching experience as an Assistant Teacher in regular service, experience acquired merely as a part-time instructor lacking the attributes of permanency, administrative responsibility, and regular academic engagement cannot be treated as valid compliance with the eligibility criteria. To hold otherwise would amount to rewriting the rules, which is impermissible in law.”
Inclusion In Waiting List Doesn't Create Indefeasible Right To Appointment: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Nitish Maurya and 4 others Versus State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 5 [WRIT - A No. - 7520 of 2025]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 5
The Allahabad High Court has recently reiterated that a wait list candidate has no absolute right for being considered for appointment and wait list cannot be for an indefinite period.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,
“It is well settled that a person in waiting list has no absolute right for consideration to get appointed as well as that a waiting list cannot remain in existence for unlimited period or a particular selection process cannot remain pending for unlimited period.
Case Title: Smt Raziya Kahtoon Versus State of U.P Thru Prin Secy Stamp and Registration Lko and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 6 [WRIT - C No. - 19818 of 2017]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 6
The Allahabad High Court has held that the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 cannot form the basis of determination of market value under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,
“There is no doubt that the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 encompasses different object and cannot be applied for the purpose of determination of the value of the land insofar it relates to Indian Stamp Act. Such determination is not controlled in any manner by the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950. Notification under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 can at best be one of the factors for consideration at the time of determination of the market value under the Indian Stamp Act and relevant Rules as prescribed under the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997.”
Case Title: Suryadev Pathak Versus Union of India and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 7 [WRIT - C No. - 28215 of 2025]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 7
The Allahabad High Court has held that it lacks jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that it does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and therefore does not fall within the definition of “Court” under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Act. Consequently, the High Court ruled that it cannot entertain writ petitions seeking time-bound or expeditious disposal of arbitral proceedings when a specific statutory remedy lies before the competent civil court.
The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh held
“The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and therefore does not fall within the definition of "Court" under Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Consequently, this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, 1996.”
Case Title: Soni v. State of U.P. and 7 others[WRIT – C No. - 28263 of 2025]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 8
The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted Rs. 1 lakh cost to a lady and her three minor children who were illegally dispossessed of their property. In addition to directing restoration of possession, the Court directed that the order be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action against the Civil Judge (Junior Division) who granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the respondent, dispossessing the petitioner of her property without any opportunity of hearing.
Case title - Shadab vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 9
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 9
The Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to issue a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the mandatory audio-video recording of searches and seizures as prescribed under Section 105 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
While granting bail to an accused in a theft case involving the alleged recovery of 40 motorcycles, a Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the failure to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 105 BNSS creates a doubt over the entire prosecution story.
Case title - Pravesh Singh Tomar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 10
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 10
The Allahabad High Court recently suspended the conviction and sentence of a government servant (Lekhpal) accused of sexually assaulting his 16-year-old daughter, observing that his right to earn his livelihood for survival cannot be curtailed merely because of his implication in the case.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I also noted that the appeal is of the year 2024 and there is a remote possibility of it being heard in the near future due to the heavy backlog of cases.
Case title - Monika vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 11
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 11
The Allahabad High Court has held that the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against an accused does not create a total embargo on considering his/her application for anticipatory bail.
Relying heavily on the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in the case of Asha Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 889, a bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by one Monika, a nurse by profession.
Case title - Mohd.Irfan Siddiqui vs. State Of U.P.Through Secy. Home And Anr 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 12
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 12
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed in 2020 that sought a directive for the Uttar Pradesh Police to upload every charge sheet on its official website within 24 hours of concluding an investigation.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary relied heavily on the Supreme Court's 2024 judgment in Saurav Das v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 52, wherein it was observed that copies of charge sheets aren't public documents and cannot be put online.
Case title - Man Singh .vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 13
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 13
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that an additional accused can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC based on the evidence recorded during trial and not on the basis of the materials available in the charge-sheet or the case diary, as they don't constitute evidence.
A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash thus dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking to summon the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of a deceased woman as additional accused in a dowry death case.
Case title - Ful Chandra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 14
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Wednesday dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the State authorities to transfer a government servant, as it noted that the transfer policy issued by the government is only for guidance and cannot be enforced through a court of law.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed that the transfer and posting of government servants lie in the exclusive domain of the State Government and the courts cannot issue directions to transfer a particular employee to a specific place.
Case title - Sanjay Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 15
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a criminal appeal can't be dismissed merely because of non-representation or default of the advocate for the accused and that in such circumstances, the court is obliged to appoint an amicus curiae and decide the matter on merits rather than dismissing it for non-representation.
A bench of Justice Abdul Shahid observed that the dismissal of a criminal appeal in default on account of the absence of counsel for the appellant-accused is against the mandate of Section 425 BNSS (Section 384 CrPC).
Case title - Irfan Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 16
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 16
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has laid down specific procedural guidelines that the State Government must follow before removing a President of a Nagar Palika Parishad as per Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipality Act, 1916.
The Court ruled that such removal cannot be affected merely based on a preliminary inquiry and a show-cause notice and rather, a “full-fledged inquiry” involving the framing of charges and cross-examination of witnesses is mandatory.
Case title - Suman Verma and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 17
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 17
The Allahabad High Court recently held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC merely because she is highly qualified or possesses vocational skills, as this can't lead to the conclusion that revisionist No.1/wife is working for gain.
A bench of Justice Garima Prashad also observed that it is misplaced for a husband to rely solely on the qualifications of his wife to evade his legal obligation to maintain her. The Court added that the wife's mere potential to earn is distinct from actual gainful employment.
Case Title - Dr. Abdul Ghaffar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 18
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Friday refused anticipatory bail to a man alleged to be the 'main kingpin' of a syndicate that has been accused of extending illegal and unwarranted help to Bangladeshi, Rohingya and other anti-national people so that they can settle in India and create unrest and disharmony.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava also expressed “serious displeasure and anguish” over the “callous and careless approach” of the investigating agency over failure to take appropriate steps to apprehend the accused in the case despite the gravity of the alleged offences.
Case Title - Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 19
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 19
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) last week set aside a lower court order that refused to grant a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) to popular Actor-Dancer and stage performer, Sapna Choudhary, for the renewal of her passport.
Allowing her application filed under Section 482 CrPC, a bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia directed the trial court to issue an NOC to her for renewal.
Case Title - Kuldeep Verma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 20
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 20
In an order passed today, the Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a teacher accused of maintaining a sexual relationship with his student for over a decade under the false promise of marriage.
A bench of Justice Avnish Saxena noted that since the accused was already married when he entered into a relationship with the victim, the alleged promise to marry her prima facie amounted to 'deceitful means' as contained under Section 69 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means).
Case Title - Bhagwat Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 21
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 21
The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday set aside the conviction of a man accused of kidnapping and rape while factoring in that the victim did not mention anything about forcible sexual assault during her medical examination or in her statement under Section 164 CrPC made before the Judicial Magistrate.
A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev noted that the victim's act of resiling (retracting) from her exculpatory statements given to the Magistrate during the trial casts a “shadow of doubt” over her integrity and the same had weakened the prosecution's case.
Case Title: Poem Jaiswar v. Union Of India And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 22
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 22
The Allahabad High Court has held that passport can only be denied for reasons enumerated under Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 and cannot be denied for administrative consideration and in circumstance where there is parental dispute, matrimonial disputes and criminal matters pending between natural guardians of a minor.
Referring to Section 6 of the Act, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held that “The authorities do not have a general or discretionary power to deny a passport on other extraneous or administrative grounds. In the present case of a minor, no such conditions exist that would justify rejection of the application. Parental disputes or pending matrimonial and criminal matters between the natural guardians cannot constitute a valid statutory reason for refusal. Therefore, the passport authorities are duty-bound to process and issue the passport once the prescribed formalities are completed and there is no prohibitory order.”
Case Title: Ache Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 23
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 23
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no provision in the scheme of compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 which provides for determination of suitability based on will of the deceased. It held that compassionate appointment is granted based on dependence of the family member upon the deceased employee.
Justice Manish Mathur held, “…the aspect of registered Will in favour of any member of family does not have any role to play with regard to grant of compassionate employment. The only aspect requires to be seen for such benefit is the suitability of the person for providing such employment. Such suitability necessarily has to be seen based on the fact whether the applicant was dependent upon the deceased employee or not. The overall interest and welfare of the entire family particularly widow and minor members thereof is also a sine qua non as indicated in Rule - 7 of the Rules of 1974.”
Case Title: Sangam Lal VersusThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Anr.2026 LiveLaw (AB) 24
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 24
The Allahabad High Court has held that an unemployed minor having 100% permanent functional disability after accident, is entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act as a "skilled workman".
While dealing with an appeal for enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Justice Sandeep Jain held: “even if, it is assumed that the claimant was only 16 years old and was not in any gainful employment at the time of the accident even then, he is entitled to get compensation on the basis that he was a skilled workman.”
Case title - Umme Farva vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 25
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 25
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has issued a strict mandamus to the police machinery in the state to mandatorily initiate prosecution against individuals/informants who lodge false or malicious First Information Reports (FIRs).
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held that if an investigation reveals that an FIR was based on false information, the IO is “statutorily obligated” to file a formal complaint against the informant under Section 215(1)(a) BNSS (corresponding to Section 195(1)(a) CrPC).
Case title - Shreya Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 26
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 26
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the right to appear in an examination is akin to the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
Adding that a student's future cannot be jeopardised due to “technical lapses” or administrative inertia, a bench of Justice Vivek Saran directed a Prayagraj-based university to conduct a special examination for a B.Sc. student who was denied an admit card because the university portal failed to update her admission records.
The Uttarakhand High Court recently took strong exception to the spate of online rape and death threats issued against a woman advocate who appeared as counsel for rape accused Akhtar Ali in the Nainital case.
POCSO Act | Victim Compensation Can't Be Withheld For Want Of Injury Report: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Victim X in Fir No.048 of 2025 P.s. Katra Bazar Distt. Gonda Thru.next Best Friend Her Mother Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Social Welfare Lko. and 2 others
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 27
The Allahabad High Court has held that compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015 must be granted if the FIR discloses the offence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It held that merely because no injuries are stated in the injury report, such compensation cannot be denied.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held
“Under the Scheme, compensation is to be paid to the victim of penetrative sexual assault not because the victim has sustained injuries during the penetrative sexual assault, but due to the very fact of having suffered the penetrative sexual assault. Therefore, till such time, the offence is covered within the definition of penetrative sexual assault as per Section 3 of the POSCO Act, it is immaterial whether there is any injury or not and only because there is no injury that cannot be a ground to refuse compensation to such victims.”
Case Title: M/S Wizitec Private Limited Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 28 [WRIT - C No. - 44710 of 2025]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 28
Holding that an administrative order cannot be "excessively punitive nor devoid of reasoned legal justification", the Allahabad High Court recently quashed a blacklisting order passed by a District Basic Education Officer (BSA) against a service provider.
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held
“Debarment has been recognized as a method of disciplining deviant suppliers, however, an order of debarment can never be for an indefinite period…the Court must balance the need to protect public interest with procedural fairness, ensuring that administrative measures such as blacklisting are neither excessively punitive nor devoid of reasoned legal justification. Indefinite blacklisting order cannot be legally justified as it carries serious civil consequences and therefore, it must be based on clear reasons, a defined duration, and adherence to principles of natural justice.”
State Can't Shut Unrecognised Madarsa, But Can Deny Government Grants: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: C/M Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Imam Ahmad Raza Thru.Manager,Abdul Rahman Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minority Welfare Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 29
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 29
The Allahabad High Court has held that there is no provision in law which enables the District Minority Welfare Officer to close operations of an unrecognized Madarsa in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Directing de-sealing of the madarsa, the Court clarified "that the petitioner madarsa will not be entitled to claim any government grant till it is recognized and the Madarsa Education Board will not be obliged to permit the students of the petitioner madarsa in examination conducted by the Madarsa Board and the students will not be entitled to claim the benefit of their qualification acquired from the madarsa for any purposes relating to the State Government.”
Case Title: Himanshu Srivastava and 2 others vs. State of U.P and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 30
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 30
The Allahabad High Court last week observed that the State Government is bound to follow the directions already issued by the HC and ensure that during the period when the kites flying is at its peak, the machinery is activated to ensure that manufacturing, use and sale of the Chinese Manjha does not take place so as to endanger human lives as well as the birds.
A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held
"It goes without saying that the State is bound to follow the directions already issued by this Court and ensure that during the period when the kites flying is at its peak, the State machinery must be activated to ensure that manufacturing, use and sale of the Chinese Manjha does not take place so as to endanger human lives as well as the birds."
Case Title: Shyam Mohan vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 31
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 31
The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the claim of a wife who was granted interim maintenance from her husband towards her own educational expenses, observing that her claim for such expenses was prima facie made out.
The Court also noted that it is now settled law that the court may draw an adverse inference against a husband who, despite ample opportunity, fails to file an affidavit disclosing his income and assets in maintenance proceedings.
Case Title: Smt. Kashmiri And 3 Others Versus U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Regional Manager And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 32
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 32
The Allahabad High Court has held that it cannot be assumed that the deceased in a motor vehicle accident was not earning only because he was a student in Class 12th. It held that compensation for such deceased must be calculated by treating the deceased to be an unskilled workman.
Justice Sandeep Jain held,
“Merely because the deceased was studying in Class 12, it cannot be presumed that he was not earning anything. It is apparent that claimants failed to submit any documentary proof of income and occupation of the deceased, as such, the tribunal has assessed the compensation on the basis of notional income of the deceased by presuming that he was earning Rs.15,000 per annum, which is grossly inadequate”
Recruitment Rules Can't Defeat Object Of Compassionate Appointment: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Banaras Hindu University And 4 Others v. Nameirakpamshangbanabi Devi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 33
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 33
The Allahabad High Court has held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general process of recruitment and undue reliance cannot be placed on the recruitment rules to defeat the object of compassionate appointment.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,
“Suffice to note that the Recruitment Rules are in furtherance of the requirements of Article 16 of the Constitution of India whereas Compassionate Rules are an exception to those Rules and are protected, for reasons of the special purpose of their incorporation. To the extent the exceptional rules provide room for larger discretion to be exercised-to address the spirit of the Compassionate Rules, their full operation may not be cut short by unduly reading the provisions of the Recruitment Rules that have no bearing on the purpose of the Compassionate Rules.”
Case title - Avneesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 34
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 34
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings in a theft case where cognizance was taken by the Magistrate beyond the mandatory period prescribed under Section 468 CrPC [Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation].
The Court took strong exception to the explanation offered by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, who submitted that, as per the usual practice prevalent in all magisterial courts, no in-depth enquiry is made on police reports before taking cognizance.
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Jindal v. Debt Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 35 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7466 of 2025]
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 35
While refraining from imposing cost on a young advocate, the Allahabad High Court cautioned that advocates are not mere mouthpieces of their clients and they must refrain from accepting frivolous briefs which waste the judicial time.
Taking a lenient view as the counsel got enrolled only in 2024, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed,
“..the learned Counsel should understand that although he represents his client before the Court, he is not a mere mouthpiece of his client. In case a client insists for filing a petition or advancing a submission which is frivolous, the Advocate should advise him not to do so and the Advocate should refrain from accepting such a frivolous brief.”
Allahabad High Court Quashes Summons Against Directors Of Larsen & Toubro In Air Pollution Case
Case Title: Sudhindra V. Desai And 5 Others Versus U.P. Pollution Control Buard Thru. Its Assistant Environmental Engineer Shri Ashutosh Pandey Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 36
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 36
The Allahabad High Court quashed the summons against M/s Larsen & Toubro and its directors in case registered for violation of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, on grounds that the Magistrate failed to apply his mind on the documents placed before it.
Applicants include Whole-time Director & Sr. Executive Vice Presidents for different branches of L&T, Whole-time Director & CFO of L&T, Chairman & Managing Director of L&T and Independent Directors of L&T who were all summoned by the Special Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow in a case lodged under Section 37 of the Air Act against M/s Larsen & Toubro.
Case title - Vineeta vs. Dr Ved Prakash Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 37
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 37
The Allahabad High Court has held that if a wife, by her own acts or omissions, causes or contributes to the incapacity of her husband to earn, she cannot be permitted to take advantage of such a situation and claim maintenance.
A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla ruled that granting maintenance in such a scenario would result in “grave injustice”, particularly when the husband's earning capacity was destroyed by the criminal acts of the wife's family.
'No Effective Hearing Taking Place': Allahabad High Court Asks UP Govt To Fill Waqf Tribunal Vacancy
Case title - Faisal Khan vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Thru. Chief Executive Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 38
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 38
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has requested the Uttar Pradesh Government to expeditiously fill vacancy in the Waqf Tribunal, as it noted that no effective hearings are taking place due to the existing vacancies.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the order on Monday while disposing of a writ petition filed by one Faisal Khan.
Case Title: Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others Versus State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) Govt. of U.P., Lucknow and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 39
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 39
The Allahabad High Court has held that before issuing a direction to send a child to boarding school amid custody battle between parents, psychologically evaluation of the child is necessary to ascertain whether such child can handle the separation from the parent he/ she has been living with.
In a battle for custody and visitation of a minor son between warring parents, the bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh held,
“The Court has to ensure that in a legal battle between the conflicting couple, the child is not used as a weapon nor is he victimized. Sending a child to a boarding school cannot be an answer in black and white. It is necessary to psychologically evaluate the child to assess as to whether it is necessary to remove the child from the custody of his mother and put him in a boarding school. How the child will react is an important aspect to be considered before taking such a decision".
Case title - Umang Rastogi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 40
In a significant order passed on Thursday, the Allahabad High Court has directed that any police officer in the state who fails to disclose specific "grounds of arrest" in the arrest memo shall be liable for departmental proceedings after being placed under suspension.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay observed that "empty compliance" of the law by merely filling out forms without substance amounts to a dereliction of duty.
Case title - Chandresh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 41
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 41
The Allahabad High Court recently observed that there is an increasing tendency among the youth to live together without the solemnization of marriage under the influence of Western ideas and the concept of live-in. It also noted that when such relations fail, FIRs are lodged.
A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra-I added that since the laws are in favour of women, men get convicted relying upon the laws which were made when the concept of live-in was nowhere in existence.
Case title - Avanish Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 42
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The Allahabad High Court has directed the trial courts across the state of Uttar Pradesh that the framing of charges must not be deferred merely because an accused has filed a revision petition or appeal against the order rejecting his discharge application.
A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash observed that the trial courts are under a "statutory duty" to frame charges if a plea seeking discharge is rejected, unless a superior court has specifically stayed that order.
Allahabad High Court Rejects PIL Questioning Lowering Of NEET-PG 2025-26 Cut-Offs
Case title - Abhinav Gaur vs. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 43
The Allahabad High Court today rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the decision of the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to reduce the qualifying cut-off percentiles for NEET-PG 2025-26 to zero percentile and a score of minus 40 for certain categories.
A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra rejected the PIL plea noting that the Delhi HC has already dismissed a similar plea and a petition on this subject matter is also pending before the Supreme Court. A detailed order is awaited.
Case title - Khalsa Medical Store Thru. Prop. Yashwant Singh vs Reserve Bank Of India Thru. Governor And 3 Others
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 44
The Allahabad High Court has held that a blanket notice by the police to the bank to freeze a particular account, without indicating the amount (on which lien is being sought) would be illegal and arbitrary.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla added that investigating Officer is required to intimate the jurisdictional Magistrate about the same within 24 hours.
The Court has also provided that the concerned IO must also inform the banks of the case number that has been registered on basis of which said lien/freezing is sought.
Case title - Rajesh Kukreja vs. State of U.P. and Anr 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 45
The Allahabad High Court clarified that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is not maintainable by a third party even if the transaction affects him and that the same must be filed either by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque.
The bench of Justice Samit Gopal added that an authorised representative of the payee or holder of the cheque can initiate proceedings, being the power of attorney holder or the authorised signatory of the company, but the complaint is still to be in the name of the payee or holder of the cheque.
Case title - Jyoti Kamal and others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 46
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 46
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dismissed an application filed by the Executive Editor and other journalists of News18 Channel challenging a summoning order issued against them in a criminal defamation case filed by senior IPS officer Amitabh Yash.
Yash, who is currently serving as Additional Director General (ADG), STF and Law & Order, Uttar Pradesh, had filed a criminal defamation complaint against 3 journalists over a 2017 news broadcast which alleged he had accepted bribes to release a Punjab-based criminal.
Case title - Madhukar Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko And Another along with a connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Observing that the judiciary is 'starved' of the resources to meet the growing explosion of litigation, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Wednesday quashed criminal proceedings pending for over 34 years related to an alleged ruckus at the Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha.
The Court termed such stale trials a 'futile' exercise and called upon the State Government to "chop off the deadwood" of stale/futile litigations pending in various Courts across the state.
Case title - Raju Alias Rajkumar vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 48
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 48
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court issued strict 6-point guidelines to be followed by the police officials in the cases of grievous injury to an accused in a police encounter.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Deshwal also clarified that the District Police Chiefs, including Superintendents of Police (SP), Senior Superintendents of Police (SSP) and Commissioners, would be personally liable for Contempt of Court action if the Supreme Court's guidelines in the case of PUCL vs State Of Maharashtra regarding encounters are not strictly followed within their jurisdiction.