[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]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 Court has held...
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]
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.
Case title - Mohammad Shahzad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 50
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 50
The Allahabad High Court has held that the routine practice prevalent in the Family Courts of issuing warrants for recovery and arrest simultaneously is illegal and inhumane and the same must stop.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla observed that a person liable to pay maintenance is not to be treated as a person who has committed a crime and the dignity and liberty of such an individual cannot be trampled upon by the Courts to enforce a maintenance order
Case title - Arju @ Vimal vs. Umakant Parasar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 51
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is no legal impediment to order a transfer of a case by invoking powers under Section 24 Civil Procedure Code when the contesting parties are ad idem (in agreement).
The Court added that in cases of consensual transfers, the requirement for a detailed comparative examination of the balance of convenience stands considerably diluted.
The observation was made by a bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava while allowing a transfer application in a divorce suit. The Court said that while the plaintiff is ordinarily the dominus litis (master of the suit), this right is deemed waived when the transfer is not opposed.
Case title - Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 52
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application filed by former Samajwadi Party MLA Irfan Solanki, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal rejected his plea under Section 528 BNSS as it took into account the fact that the trial is at an advanced stage and that prima facie material is available against him.
Case title - Gaurav Goswami vs. Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar (Rtd.) and 12 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 53
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a contempt application filed against the Supreme Court-appointed High-Powered Temple Management Committee, led by Justice Ashok Kumar (Rtd.), for increasing the darshan timings at the Thakur Shri Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple (in Vrindavan-Mathura), allegedly in violation of HC's Novemebr 2022 order.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal noted that the Committee, empowered by the Top Court to oversee the day-to-day affairs of the temple, had decided to increase the darshan time, in light of the huge influx of pilgrims at the Temple who are facing great hardship.
Case title - Moti Lal Yadav vs. Chief Election Commissioner Election Commisn.of India and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 54
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed in 2013 seeking a ban on all caste-based political rallies and a direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to cancel the registration of political parties that organise such rallies.
Noting that the State Government has already imposed a complete prohibition on such gatherings to preserve public order, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary expected a strict and effective implementation of the Government order.
Case title - Avneesh Gupta (Minor) vs. Consortium of National Law Universities 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 55
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 55
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the merit list for CLAT-UG-2026.
The order was passed after a single judge found that the high-powered 'Oversight Committee' had arbitrarily overruled subject matter experts regarding a disputed question without assigning any reasons for the same.
A bench of Justice Vivek Saran has ordered the Consortium to treat two options ('B' & 'D') as correct for the disputed Question No. 9 (in Booklet-C) and to all other questions which correspond to the same in different booklets of CLAT-2026 entrance examination and republish the merit list within one month.
Case title - Sunil Kandu @ Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 56
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 56
The Allahabad High Court awarded a compensation of Rs 1 Lakh to a man who was wrongfully arrested and detained by the Uttar Pradesh police in 2017 without proper investigation or credible evidence against him.
A bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh noted that the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 had been infringed by an arbitrary and capricious action on the part of the arresting police personnel and that he was a helpless victim of that act.
Case title - Satti Din and another vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 57
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 57
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a 100-year-old man in connection with a murder case dating back to 1982. The acquittal was based on the merits of the case, specifically the prosecution's failure to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
In its 23-page Judgment, a bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Sanjiv Kumar made certain pertinent observations regarding the age of the accused.
Case title - Bechan Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 58
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 58
The Allahabad High Court castigated an advocate for attempting to portray a rape survivor as a "woman of easy virtue" and warned him to exercise due care and restraint in the manner of making submissions before the Court.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X observed that filing such pleadings, which contain scandalous allegations questioning the character and dignity of a woman, violates the woman's right to dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Dev Sahayam Deniyal Raj And Another vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 59
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 59
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a Tamil Nadu resident (Dev Sahayam Deniyal Raj) in a case involving alleged unlawful religious conversion in Mirzapur.
UP Police has claimed that Deniyal was the gang leader who lured people into converting, and his gang has so far converted 70 people and was planning to convert 500 more when he was arrested in September last year.
Case title - Vijendra Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Emphasizing that the procedural mandate for supplying police reports to an accused is not a mere formality but the "epitome of a fair trial", the Allahabad High Court quashed charges framed against an accused under the BNS and POCSO Act over non-compliance with Section 230 BNSS [Supply to accused of copy of police report and other documents].
A bench of Justice Avnish Saxena thus allowed a petition filed by an accused under Section 528 BNSS and observed that any trial proceeding conducted in contravention of Section 230 BNSS violates the cardinal principle of a free and fair trial.
Case title - Abhay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 61
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 61
The Allahabad High Court ordered the immediate release of Abhay Kumar, director of MZ Wiztown Planners, who was arrested last month in connection with the drowning of software engineer Yuvraj Mehta in a waterlogged pit near a construction site in Uttar Pradesh's Noida.
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay observed that his arrest was carried out in violation of the High Court's recent judgment in the case of Umang Rastogi and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 40, specifically in violation of Clause 13 of the memo of arrest.
Case Title: XXX v. Chairman U.G.C. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 62
The Allahabad High Court set aside a direction passed by a Single Judge asking a rusticated university student to stand at the university gate for 30 minutes (for 30 days) carrying a placard with the message that he would "never misbehave with any girl".
Terming the direction as unjustified and humiliating, a bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra added that such a punishment would leave a "permanent scar" on the student's character.
Case Title: Priyank Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 63
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 63
The Allahabad High Court deprecated the practice of trial court judges mentioning the names of the Judges of the Supreme Court in their orders while relying on a precedent from the Top Court.
The Court termed the system as "totally uncalled for" and one which could not be appreciated. It reminded judicial officers that only the citation, case number and the relevant text should be quoted in their orders.
Case title - Shyam Sundar and another vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 64
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 64
Taking a stern view against two litigants who claimed that the Trial Judge had issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against them under the 'persuasion' of the complainant's advocate brother, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a transfer plea with an exemplary cost of Rs. 1 Lakh.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed that the applicants had sworn the affidavit on a "perusal of records", but the records contained no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claim that the Presiding Officer had been influenced in his private chamber.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 65
In an interesting order passed recently, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) decoded a Chaupai from Shri Ramcharitmanas, an epic poem in the Awadhi language by the 16th-century Indian poet Goswami Tulsidas, for a Lawyer.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also delivered a sharp lesson to the counsel who attempted to rely on the verse without understanding its true context.
Case Title: Kamalesh Agnihotri @ Kamal And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 66
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 66
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed criminal proceedings against the office bearers of a Resident Welfare Association (RWA) of a Lucknow-based society, initiated at the instance of a person claiming to be a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that a “highly disciplined and respected cultural organisation like the RSS” had been maligned by its member (informant) who had misused his status to settle a personal parking dispute, which amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
Case title - Anoop Kumar And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 67
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 67
The Allahabad High Court slammed the claim of the state government that a Station House Officer in Mainpuri had no knowledge about the July 2025 circular of the Director General of Police regarding a new memorandum of arrest.
Declaring the arrest of two persons-petitioners as illegal over non-supply of an arrest ground to them, a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay stressed that ignorance of law cannot be a valid excuse for violating the same.
Case Title: Ravi Joel Tudu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 68 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7472 of 2024]
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 68
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the Assistant Principal of St. Peter's School Raebareli after a 6 years old student, caught cheating in exam, committed suicide.
Petitioner argued though the student had mentioned in his suicide note that he was caught cheating in the exam, Petitioner was not named in the suicide note nor in the FIR.
It was pleaded that since the Principal was not present in the school, the child was produced before the Petitioner and was left with a stern warning. He also pleaded that there was no physical harm done to the child at any stage.
Case Title: Sunita Minor And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 8 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 69
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 69
The Uttar Pradesh Government informed the Allahabad High Court that it has written to the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, with suggestions for amendments to the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2016.
The UP Government gave this proposal days after the High Court raised serious concerns regarding the mentioning of caste and religion of the minor children kept at Rajkiya Balgrih/Children's Home.
Case title - Ashish Shukla vs State Of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Case ciation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 70
The Allahabad High Court refused bail to an advocate who has been accused of forging his Class XII Marksheet and getting himself registered with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of the said document.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal quoted the Sanskrit Shloka "आचारः परमो धर्मः।" [Meaning: Righteous conduct is the highest duty.] to stress that an advocate is an officer of the Court, and when he himself resorts to such illegality, it constitutes a grave and deliberate fraud upon the institution of justice.
Case title - Mohd. Azeem Idrishi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another and connected case 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 71
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 71
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed the entire criminal proceedings against two persons who were wrongly arrested by UP Police without verifying their involvement in connection with Rape and Fraud cases, respectively.
A bench of Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari stressed that deprivation of liberty of a person on account of mistaken identity is impermissible in law and strikes at the very root of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Abhishek Jaiswal vs. PNB Head Office Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 72
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 72
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed a one-line order passed by the Punjab National Bank (PNB) rejecting the compassionate appointment claim of a deceased employee's son.
While allowing the petition filed by one Abhishek Jaiswal, a bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed that the word 'compassion' cannot be considered in a vacuum, as it denotes sympathy, kindness and a soft feeling of human sentiment.
Case title - Dinesh And 8 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 73
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 73
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the caste of a person assigned at the time of his birth remains the same even if he changes his religion. The Court added that even the marriage of a woman does not change her caste.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X thus DISMISSED a criminal appeal filed by Dinesh and 8 others challenging an order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, summoning them to face trial for offences under Sections 323, 506, 452 and 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(R) of the SC/ST Act.
Case title - Samiya And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 74
The Allahabad High Court reiterated the State's obligation to protect the life and liberty of couples marrying against familial wishes. The Court directed strict compliance with the UP Government 2019 Order, which sets out mandatory preventive and remedial measures for such couples.
While disposing of a protection plea for a couple, a bench of Justice Garima Prashad noted that police authorities are bound to assess threat perception in each case and extend the necessary protection, including safe accommodation and security, depending on the gravity of the situation.
Case title - Moti Lal Yadav vs. Honble Chief Minister Thru. Cabinet Secy. State Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 75
After the Uttar Pradesh Government submitted that it is in the process of constituting an OBC Commission for the purposes of ensuring Panchayat elections as per law, the Allahabad High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning the issue.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary was hearing a PIL plea filed by Advocate Moti Lal Yadav, which argued that the proposal to form a 6-member dedicated OBC commission has been pending before the state cabinet (CM Yogi Adityanath) for more than 5 months.
Case Title: Shivam Chaurasiya Thru. His Brother Mr. Manas Chaurasiya Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 76
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The Allahabad High Court has granted relief in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, observing that supplying grounds of arrest on a separate paper to the accused is invalid when the same is not referenced in the arrest memo and lacks witness attestation.
The bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani held:
"As per Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023, under which the arrest memo is to be issued, it is categorically provided that the memorandum of arrest would be attested by atleast one witness who is the member of a family of a person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made duly countersigned by the person arrested".
Case title - Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 77
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 77
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging an order passed on the wife's application under Section 125 CrPC, as it noted that there is a substantial disparity in the earning capacity and financial status of the parties.
The bench noted that the income attributed to the wife cannot be said to be sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living to which she was accustomed during her matrimonial life.
Case title - Alice Lee @ Li Tengli vs. Union Of India And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 78
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 78
While granting bail to a Chinese national accused of tax evasion, the Allahabad High Court took serious objection to a counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST (the Deponent), wherein the names of Supreme Court Judges were mentioned while referring to their judgment.
"This system of mentioning the names of Hon'ble Judges while giving reference to the judgments is totally uncalled for", a bench of Justice Samit Gopal remarked.
Case title - Kunal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 79
The Allahabad High Court made a separate reference for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate who accused the Court in open court of "working under the pressure of the Government" and lacking the 'courage' to seek an explanation from the police.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai found the conduct of the advocate (Ashutosh Kumar Mishra) as "highly objectionable, scandalous and derogatory" and noted it prima facie fell within the ambit of 'criminal contempt' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Case Title: Abdul Qadir And Another v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 80
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 80
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to two accused in the Codeine Cough Syrup Racket on grounds that huge quantity of illegally diverted Codeine based Cough Syrup was recovered from them.
Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held,
“In the opinion of the Court the exemption provisions are required to be strictly and literally complied with and further that the conditions under which the exemption is granted is strictly adhered to…Any violation of any condition would desentitle the claimant the exemption. In the instant case the possession of huge quantity of illegally diverted Codeine based Cough Syrup has been recovered and thus the condition 'established in therapeutic practice' is flagrantly violated denying the applicants of the exemption.”
Case title - Sonu And 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 81
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Magistrate is legally bound to consider and pass an order on the Final Report (closure report) filed by the police, even in those cases where he has already taken cognizance of the offence based on an earlier charge sheet.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X added that if the Magistrate proceeds further in the case without considering the Final Report at all, such inaction amounts to a "procedural illegality".
Case title - Jai Kumar Aggarwal vs. Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 82
The Allahabad High Court has held that while the "reasons to believe” recorded by the Commissioner under Section 69 CGST Act 2017 need not be furnished to the accused, the "grounds of arrest" must mandatorily be supplied to him as an Annexure to the Arrest Memo.
A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay thus allowed the habeas corpus writ petition filed by one Jai Kumar Aggarwal while setting aside the remand order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
Case title - Khush R Goel vs Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 83
The Allahabad High Court has held that a certificate issued by the District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, acts as conclusive proof of gender/identity for the issuance of a passport.
A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that the Passport Authority can't demand a fresh medical examination or changes to the birth certificate for the issuance of a passport.
Case Title: Smt Mugga Devi And 4 Others v. Makkhan Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 84 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1995 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 84
The Allahabad High Court has held that pension being received by the claimant and the family pension received by the legal heirs of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident should not be considered at the time of calculating compensations under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Sebastiani Lakra and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another and Hanumantharaju B. through LR vs. M. Akram Pasha and another, Justice Sandeep Jain held
“It is apparent from the above judgements of the Apex Court that the pension paid to the claimant or family pension being paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee is not to be considered and deducted while assessing compensation in the claim case and the compensation is to be determined on the basis of salary/pension of the injured/deceased, which he was getting at the time of the accident.”
Case title - Ram Shanker Shukla And Another vs. Madhukar Shukla And 7 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 85
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 85
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) observed that a statement made by a counsel without specific instructions from the client can't be treated as a binding undertaking for the purpose of contempt proceedings.
A bench of Justice Manish Kumar thus withdrew contempt charges for alleged wilful disobedience of a Court order against the respondent.
Case title - Sunil Kumar Gupta Alias Sunil Chain Thru. His Son Akshit Gupta vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs , New Delhi And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 86
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has observed that a detention order under the National Security Act 1980 can be passed against an accused who is already in jail if the authority is of the opinion that, upon his release on bail, he will indulge in acts prejudicial to public order.
A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani thus dismissed a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by one Sunil Kumar Gupta, challenging the invocation of the NSA against himwhile they were in jail.
Case title - Azeem Ahmad Khan Alias Abeem Ahmad And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 87
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 87
The Allahabad High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against two students who were implicated for offering Namaz at a location designated by the local administration for that purpose.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava also warned the students to follow the instructions and specific restraints issued by the local administration in the future.
Case Title: Vikas Chaudhary And Another v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 88 [WRIT - C No. - 41622 of 2025]
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 88
In a petition seeking CRPF protection for life, the Allahabad High Court held that having police protection has become more of a status symbol at the cost of taxpayers' money.
The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan observed
“..it can very well be held that the nature of threat perception and the liability to provide security has to be left to be decided by the authorities concerned, since this is clearly a question of fact to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty and not for this Court to determine while exercising it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, we find that the provision for security in the shape of police personnel has become more of a status symbol by means of which, a privileged class has been created at the expense of the State and the taxpayers' money.”
Case title - Mani Miraj Alias Ramdi Miraj Alam vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 89
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 89
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to YouTuber and Comedian Mani Miraj, alias Ramdi Miraj Alam, who is facing serious allegations of rape, assault, unnatural offences and forced abortion.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary after the informant/victim personally appeared before the Court and submitted a handwritten statement confirming a mutual compromise between the parties.
Case Title: Shivdhari Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 90 [WRIT - C No. - 130 of 2026]
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 90
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Collector has the power under Rule 64(2)(b) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 to cancel allotment of a residential plot if construction is not made on it within a reasonable time and after giving notices to the concerned party.
Justice Alok Mathur held,
“To ensure effectiveness of the provision for allotment of residential sites and to ensure its compliance it is undoubtedly necessary that the land should be used for the purpose of construction of a house within a reasonable time. In case, for any reason, the allottee has not been able to construct house, notice should certainly be given to him requiring him to construct his house within the time prescribed and even if within the time prescribed he or she does not construct house it would certainly be open for the Collector to invoke the powers under Sub clause 2 (b) of Rule 64 and cancel the allotment.”
Case title - Prema Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 91
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) held that the State is absolutely liable for the unnatural death of a prisoner in its custody, even if the death is a patently unnatural suicide.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla ruled that the right to life and human dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is an intrinsic, inviolable and omnipresent right extended even to an individual who is illegally arrested and detained by the State.
Case Title: Noori And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 92
While dealing with a bunch of petitions relating to interfaith couples in live-in relationships, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 does not prohibit inter-religion relationships, be it interfaith live-in relationships or interfaith marriage.
Holding that right to choose a partner and right to live with dignity are part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held,
“Right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. This Court fails to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to hetrosexual relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together.”
Case title - Raees vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who spent approximately 23 years in jail on the charges of the gruesome murder of his wife and 3 children, as it concluded that the prosecution's evidence did not conclusively prove that the offence was committed by him.
In its 10-page order, a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay said that the case was a sad commentary on our criminal justice delivery system and it required introspection.
Case title - In Re vs. Shri Hari Narayan Pandey Advocate 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 94
The Allahabad High Court warned social media users against hurling online abuses directed at the judiciary that go beyond the defence of fair comment or informed criticism of a judgment.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava added that if the court takes cognizance of such posts in contempt jurisdiction, the same will attract strict legal consequences.
"…we do wish to remind the public to be cautious in future, because words that are most unambiguously contumacious, circulate on the social media, which, as and when, taken cognizance of in our contempt jurisdiction, may expose the contemnor to penalties of the law, which the Court may not hesitate to impose", the Court remarked.
Case title - Hasnen vs Union of India and 5 others and connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 95
The Allahabad High Court upheld the detention of 3 persons under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, who were accused of illegally slaughtering cattle in the town of Kalpi, Jalaun, in March 2025, on the first day of Chaitra Navratri, coinciding with the very event of Eid.
A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I noted that the alleged act, precisely timed at a confluence of major religious festivals in a nation as ancient and as diverse as ours, was not a mere "law and order" problem and it squarely fell within the ambit of "public order".
Case title - Kirti Verma vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 96
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the directions for fresh recording of a statement under Section 183 BNSS before the Magistrate can be given only under exceptional circumstances.
"…the power is not a routine or an automatic power but is exercised by High Court or Supreme Court to prevent abuse of process, to secure ends of justice or rectify grave procedural irregularities that could lead to miscarriage of justice", a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Achal Sachdev remarked.
Case title - Sachin Arya @ Sachin Bhartiya And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97
The Allahabad High Court slammed the UP Police officials by observing that they have "no respect for law of the land" as they arrested a man, booked for offences punishable by less than seven years, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's Satendra Kumar Antil Guidelines 2026.
The Court also pulled up the state police officials for delaying the petitioner's release by approximately 20 hours despite the HC's explicit orders (on February 12) to release him 'forthwith'.
Case title - Seema Gupta vs State of U.P and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Taking 'judicial notice' of the fact that a daughter's pregnancy outside wedlock for an average Indian is a 'nightmare' which invites 'uncontrollable' reactions from parents, mostly violent, the Allahabad High Court upheld the life imprisonment of a couple convicted of killing their minor daughter and their 28-year-old tenant.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the wife and husband duo who killed their 15-year-old daughter and their tenant with whom she allegedly had an affair, as they were upset over her pregnancy.
Case title - Sanu @ Rashid vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 99
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 99
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Judicial Officer, while discharging his judicial function, is above the District Magistrate or District Police Chief and even the political head of a State, and that disregarding his order is 'unpardonable'.
The Court added that such disregard for the orders passed by a Judicial Officer is not merely contempt of court but a direct challenge to the authority of law.
Also from the order : Faulty CCTVs A 'Routine Feature' In UP: Allahabad High Court Deems Surprise Police Station Inspections Part Of CJMs' Official Duty
Case title - Harshit @ Honey vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 100
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that merely calling a person by referring to his or her profession would not, by itself, attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act.
The Court clarified that such words must be used intentionally to humiliate a victim belonging to the SC/ST Community to constitute an offence under the Act.
Case Title: Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad And Another v. Indra Mohan Sachdev 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 101
The Allahabad High Court expressed shock at the conduct of a trial judge for ignoring photocopy of the death certificate of an individual in a title dispute, thereby causing wrongful gain to the plaintiff.
Stating that the reasons assigned by the judicial officer were perverse, dishonest and passed to give undue advantage to the plaintiff, Justice Sandeep Jain observed:
“The reason assigned by the trial court for ignoring the death certificate of Sushila Mehra is shocking, perverse and tainted with extraneous considerations. The trial court purposely in order to cause illegal gain to the plaintiff has ignored it, which needs to be deprecated. The conduct of the trial Judge is not above board, who has either due to extraneous reasons or due to lack of competence, has passed the impugned decree, which cannot be legally justified in any manner whatsoever. It is a case of deliberate judicial misconduct, which renders the integrity of the Judge doubtful. This is a case which shocks the conscience of this Court that how could a Judge act in this manner, in order to cause wrongful gain to the plaintiff. The facts of the case speak for themselves, the blatant manner in which law has been flouted and justice has been denied. It is a case of daylight judicial murder.”
FIR Not Doubtful Or Diluted Merely Because It Was Lodged With Advocate's Help: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Jagdamba Harijan Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 102
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 102
The Allahabad High Court has held that FIR cannot be considered doubtful or diluted merely because it was filed with the assistance of an advocate.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that legal assistance is available to all at all stages of criminal proceedings and can be availed even at the stage of filing of FIR.
Case Title: Dayanand and 2 others Versus Mohan @ Ghure 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 103
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 103
The Allahabad High Court allowed an amendment application filed in a suit filed in the year 1997 on grounds that the amendment in proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI, specifying the bar on amendments in suits after commencement of trials, was enacted in 2002, i.e., after filing of the suit.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held
“The suit is of the year 1997 which is pre amendment and therefore, amended proviso will not apply to the suit in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council..”
The Allahabad High Court has held that information on marks in public exams is not confidential information and does not require consent of the third party, whose marks are sought by the RTI applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Case Title: Kishori Lal vs. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 105
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 105
The Allahabad High Court has held that death by snake bite entitles dependents for ex-gratia relief from the State Disaster Relief Fund.
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,
“it is evident that the government notification dated 02.08.2018 clearly recognizes death due to snake bite as a circumstance entitling the dependents of the deceased to ex gratia relief. It is also apparent that the notification dated 02.08.2018 is a State-specific policy intended to aid in cases of disasters or calamities which are not included for relief under other policies. The said notification, therefore, contemplates relief to families affected by specific local contingencies, including death due to snake bite.”
Case Title: Amit Gupta And 5 Others vs. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare New Delhi And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 106
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 106
The Allahabad High Court held that a writ petition against recruitment advertisement by All India Institute of Medical Science, Raebareli is not maintainable.
While dismissing the writ petition, Justice Shree Prakash Singh relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar V. Union Of India to hold that,
“...the tribunals created under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India, are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules and even the vires of the act of the statutory legislation can also be looked into, by the Tribunals.”
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 107
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Special Court or Magistrate is not automatically bound to direct registration of an FIR on an application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS merely because the applicant belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X added that the Court has to first evaluate the allegations placed before it and thereafter, decide whether it is appropriate to direct investigation by the police or to proceed with the matter as a complaint case.
Case title - Mansoor Ansari vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 108
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 108
The Allahabad High Court set aside the attachment of immovable property belonging to one Mansoor Ansari, the cousin of gangster Mukhtar Ansari, as it observed that the State failed to establish any nexus between the commission of any offence and the construction of the building/shops in question.
A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh clarified that the State cannot seize property under the UP Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, based on "mere bald allegations" or simply because an individual is related to a known gangster.
Ad-Hoc Service Can't Be Ignored For Promotion If Appointment Was Not Illegal: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: State of U.P. Thru.Prin./Addl.Chief Secy.Deptt.Housing and Urban Planning Govt. U.P. Lko.and Anr vs Anil Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 109
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 109
The Allahabad High Court has held that ad-hoc service of an employee cannot be ignored by the government for promotion if appointment was not illegal. It also held that promotion must be awarded to an employee, whose claim was illegally ignored, from the date on which his juniors were given promotion.
Holding that an ad-hoc appointment made pursuant to the rules can at best be irregular and not illegal, the bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla has held,
“….if claim of an employee has been illegally ignored and juniors have been promoted, the said employee is bound to be promoted from the date his juniors were given such promotion…”
Case Title: Vansh Nigam and another vs Workmens Compensation Commissioner/Collector Lakhimpur Kheri and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 110
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Collector has the power to suo moto invite applications for insurance claims under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 when he/she comes to know of an accident. Further, the Court held that Collector has the powers of the Civil Court and provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to claims under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
Case Title: Sachin Kumar Versus Smt Nidhi Dohre And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 111
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 111
The Allahabad High Court has held that only Family Court has the jurisdiction to deal with disputes (suits or other proceedings) between married couples regarding the properties owned by them.
Justice Sandeep Jain held,
“Explanation (c) of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act,1984 provides that suits or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them, are only cognizable by the Family Court.”
Case Title: Anendra Singh v. Ram Kishan and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 112
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 112
The Allahabad High Court has held that limitation for filing amendment application in a suit must be decided in reference to the stage at which the suit is, rather than from the date on which the suit was instituted.
Observing that the jurisdiction to allow amendments at any stage is provided under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,
“Such amendments as are directed towards putting-form and seeking determination of the real question in controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. The question of delay in moving an application for amendment should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of the suit alone but by reference to the stage to which the hearing in the suit has proceeded. Pre-trial amendments are allowed more liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial or after conclusion thereof.”
Case Title: Reena v. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 113
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 113
The Allahabad High Court has held that a woman, who entered into a bigamous marriage before being appointed as a government school teacher, cannot be punished for misconduct on this ground under U.P. Government Servant Conduct Rules and U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.
It however held that the candidate, who contracted marriage in 2009 with a person whose first marriage was subsisting, will be ineligible for appointment as a teacher under Rule 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Teachers Service Rules, 1981 as this defect goes to the very root of the appointment, rendering it void ab initio.
Case title - Munazir Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 114
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 114
The Allahabad High Court held that Article 25 of the Constitution of India protects the right to congregate for worship for every religious denomination in the country, but it does not accord protection to incitement of one faith by another in the garb of prayer.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that there can be no impediment or embargo with regard to prayers or religious functions being conducted within the private premises of a person, irrespective of the denomination of faith he belongs to.
Case title - Sandeep Audichya vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 115
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 115
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court noted that superior police officers sometimes resort to measures to 'browbeat' Magistrates when orders directing investigation of particularly 'uncomfortable' cases are passed by them.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi firmly advised Magistrates that if any such embarrassment or pressure is faced from any police officer, it is always open to them to make a contempt reference to the High Court.
Case title - Shri Sukhnandan vs. Union of India Thru. General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 116
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 116
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an unborn child aged five months or more in the mother's womb is treated as equal to a child in existence and the Railway would be liable to pay separate compensation for the accidental death of such an unborn child, distinct from the compensation awarded for the death of the mother.
A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar thus allowed an appeal against an order of the Railway Claims Tribunal in Lucknow by granting an additional compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the claimant for the loss of a foetus.
Case Title: Magghu Ram v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue Deptt. ) Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 117
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 117
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Rules made thereunder cannot be invoked to title and ownership disputes between third parties who are not related to the senior citizens.
It held that the Act is for the maintenance and protection of senior citizens by those who will inherit their property, not for deciding the title and ownership of the property which can only be done after examination of evidence in civil proceedings.
Case Title: Lalsa Devi Versus State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 118
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 118
While dealing with a case of financial assistance being sought by a deceased farmer's family in the schemes enacted by the State Government, the Allahabad High Court observed that making the widow of the farmer approach the Court multiple times to get such assistance under a welfare scheme due to inaction on part of the authorities cannot be sustained.
The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad observed,
“Administrative action of this nature, marked by indifference to the plight of a beneficiary under a welfare scheme, cannot be sustained in a constitutional system committed to securing social justice.”
Case title - Babloo Yadav @ Billa vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 119
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 119
To boost digital efficiency, the Allahabad High Court has suggested that the Uttar Pradesh government should engage tech-savvy young advocates and fresh law graduates as honorary Research Associates in the office of the Government Advocate and in the Joint Director, Prosecution, High Court.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal made this suggestion, noting that it is the need of the hour to ramp up digitisation efforts and urgently address severe staff shortages in the office of the Government Advocate.
Case Title: Smt. Alka Singhania Versus Smt. Shilpi Agarwal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 120
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 120
The Allahabad High Court has held that condition of surety for grant of succession certificate under section 375 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 cannot be imposed mechanically in all cases. It held that in cases where their is a sole heir or no objection is being raised regarding grant of certificate to one heir, such conditions must not be imposed.
Mutation Cannot Be Allowed Based On Sale Deed Allegedly Executed 45 Years Ago: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Dalbir And 3 Others Versus Board Of Revenue Prayagraj And 18 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 121
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 121
The Allahabad High Court has held that even though there is no limitation for mutation in revenue records, the same cannot be allowed based on sale deed allegedly executed 45 years ago.
Justice Chandra Kumar Rai observed
“It is material to mention that mutation application have been filed by the private respondents after more than 45 years on the basis of sale deed alleged to be executed in their favour which should not be allowed although there is no limitation for filing the mutation application but the filing of mutation application after more than 45 years, creates doubt about the document in question.”
Case Title: Kusum Mishra And Another Versus U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Executive Engineer Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 122
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 122
The Allahabad High Court has held that Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., which restricts parties form adducing additional evidence before appellate Courts, is not applicable in appeals against order of temporary injunction by the Trial Court.
Referring to Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held
“the aforesaid Rule applies to filing of additional evidence in appeal, after the parties have availed the opportunity to adduce evidence before the trial Court. In the present case, evidence is yet to be produced before the trial Court. Therefore, the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. will not apply to filing documents before the appellate Court while challenging the validity of an order of temporary injunction.”
Case title - Mohd. Faizan and 2 others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 123
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 123
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an application under Section 482 CrPC or Section 528 BNSS is not maintainable against an order refusing discharge passed by a Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, even if the state police investigated the scheduled offence
The Court held that the remedy against such orders is to file a statutory appeal under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act, 2008.
Case title - Rameshwar Singh vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 124
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 124
The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and 7-year rigorous imprisonment of a man who shot his wife in February 1983 inside their matrimonial home over an unfulfilled dowry demand for a motorcycle.
Dismissing the husband's criminal appeal filed in 1985, the Court relied heavily on the testimony of the injured wife, terming her a "sterling witness" whose evidence was absolutely trustworthy.
Case Title: Mohd. Yaqoob and another v. District Registrar/A.D.M. Fandr Bahraich and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 125
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 125
The Allahabad High Court has held that the registrar and Sub-Registrar under the Registration Act are not Court and therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not be applicable to proceedings under the Registration Act.
Justice Irshad Ali held
“..the office of Registrar, Additional Registrar or the Sub Registrar may not be treated as a Court. Accordingly the provision contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable in a proceeding under the Registration Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act categorically extends the power for extension of period beyond the date of limitation provided by the Limitation Act or statute to a Court and not to other authorities.”
Case title - Angad Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 126
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 126
The Allahabad High Court has held that a convicted prisoner can't be granted parole merely to arrange or fix the marriage of their children under the Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentence of Prisoners) Rules, 2007.
While denying relief to Ex-MLA Angad Yadav, a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti also noted that, as per Rule 1(4)(c) of the 2007 Rules, a prisoner with pending criminal cases is statutorily barred from availing parole benefits.
Case Title: Shailesh Kumar Yadav Ips vs. Union Of India And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 127
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 127
The Allahabad High Court has held that punishment under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 can only be imposed if there is deliberate obstruction or delay in supplying information sought under the RTI Act. It cannot be imposed based on rushed or prejudged decisions which compromise statutory safeguards or rule of law.
Case Title: State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko And Another vs. Anshul Jagannath 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 128
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 128
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the Court has suo moto powers to extend the time limit for disciplinary proceedings fixed by an earlier Court to ensure that serious misconduct does not go unpunished.
Referring to the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others which was affirmed by the Apex Court in U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh, the bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,
Case Title: Km. Lakshmi And 10 Others Versus State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 129
In a case of leaked paper and cancelled examination, the Allahabad High Court has held that there is no indefeasible right to force the State to conclude the examination process when papers leaked may have benefited the candidates.
While dealing with cancellation of written examinations conducted by U.P. Education Service Selection Commission in which paper was leaked, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held
“a candidate has no indefeasible right to be selected or to force the State to conclude an examination process which was tainted since papers of written examination were leaked and candidates were benefited also. It is the fairness which is the utmost object to conduct any examination and under no circumstance it can be permitted to compromise.”
Case Title: Bihari Lal vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 130
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976, opportunity of hearing is mandatory if the competent authority seeks to reject the application for cutting/ removing or disposing of fallen trees.
Perusing Section 5 of the Act which provides the procedure to fell and remove trees, the bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan held,
“It is also open to the competent authority that in case he is not satisfied with the report made under Section 5 (1) of the Code, 2006, he may make further enquiry. However, the provision to Section 5 (2) of the Act, 1976 clearly provides that permission shall not be refused without affording the opportunity of hearing to the applicant.”
Case title - Veer Pal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 131
The Allahabad High Court cancelled the bail of a POCSO Accused who allegedly started harassing and threatening the minor victim after his release on bail, due to which she died by suicide.
Noting that prima facie the allegations under Section 108 BNS have been substantiated during the investigation, a bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh cancelled the bail of the accused, categorically observing that the accused deliberately breached the conditions of said bail and misused the liberty of bail.
Ex-Parte Divorce Decree Can't Be Set Aside After Spouse's Death: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Smt. Geeta Rani And 2 Others Versus Smt. Maya Devi And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 132
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 132
The Allahabad High Court has held that an ex-parte divorce decree cannot be set aside after spouse's death.
The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh relied on Smt. Yallawwa vs. Smt. Shantavva (1997) where the Supreme Court gave directions regarding maintainability of the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree in the matrimonial case against a deceased spouse
Case Title: Smt. Geeta Devi and another Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 133
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 133
The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 65 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, the Sub-Divisional Officer/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate is required to protect the possession of the allottee as long as the title of the property vests in the State. It held that the job of the SDO does not end at after allotment of initial possession but continues till the State has title over the property.
Case Title - Kafi Ahmed Khan vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 134
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 134
The Allahabad High Court strongly deprecated the practice of public employers bypassing regular recruitment by continuously engaging staff through outsourcing agencies.
Observing that such a system provides wide "room for exploitation and unfairness", a bench of Justice Vikram D Chauhan directed the Bareilly Nagar Nigam to consider regularising a Computer Operator who has been working on an outsourced basis for over 13 years.
Preliminary Issue Can't Be Raised 18 Years After Framing Of Issues In Suit: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Paras @ Ram Paras Versus Ram Charitra and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 135
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court has held that preliminary issue in a suit cannot be raised 18 years after framing of issues in a trial.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,
“Plea regarding maintainability of suit is required to be raised at the first instance in the pleading (written statement), then only such plea can be adjudicated by the trial court on its merit as preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC.”
Bonafides Of Explanation For Condonation Of Delay Must Be Ascertained First: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Neha Jaykishore Mehrolia v. Rahul Sisodia 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 136
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 136
The Allahabad High Court has held that while delay with delay condonation, the Court must first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation furnished by the party seeking such condonation.
While dealing with an appeal, filed with a delay of 654 days, against a judgment declaring a marriage void, the bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh held,
“The Court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the Court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay.”
Absence Of Notice U/S 24 CPC Not Fatal To Transfer Unless Prejudice Shown: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Shiv Shankar v. Mahavir @ Ghura Turha And 5 Others
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 137
The Allahabad High Court has held that not issuing notice under Section 24 CPC before transferring a suit does not vitiate the transfer unless prejudice can be demonstrated by the party.
Section 24 CPC provides for transfer of suits, appeals or any other proceedings pending before the High Court or District Courts to another forum on application made by any of the parties or on its own motion. It provides that such transfer must be done after issuing notice ot the parties and after hearing them. Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C. provides for return of plaint.
Case title - Hasina Khatoon vs State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 138
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 138
The Allahabad High Court has categorically held that committing a person to a civil prison for default in paying maintenance to his wife or children does not absolve him of his legal liability to pay further monthly maintenance arrears.
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri clarified that the doctrine of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC is entirely inapplicable to the execution of maintenance orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Case title - Pradeep Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 139
The Allahabad High Court rejected petitions filed by 9 individuals to quash the criminal proceedings pertaining to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Kanpur.
Describing the mass violence following the assassination of former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi as a 'genocide' and a 'crime against humanity', the Court said that delay in recording witness statements and the non-availability of original police records cannot be grounds to quash the proceedings.
Case title - Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 140
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 140
The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple in a case registered under the POCSO Act over the alleged sexual abuse of minors.
In a detailed 22-page order, a bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha questioned the 'unusual' conduct of the minor victims in confiding about the alleged offence in a stranger, the first informant (Ashutosh Brahmachari), rather than in their natural guardians.
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 141
The Allahabad High Court set aside a Family Court order granting maintenance to a minor girl under Section 125 CrPC, while first ordering a DNA test to ascertain her correct parentage, a plea raised earlier by her father (revisionist), but was rejected.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that in cases involving peculiar facts and circumstances, both the father and the daughter have every right to know the biological truth.
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 142
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is 'wrong' for any person to claim in secular India that a particular religion is the "only true religion", as doing so implies a 'disparagement' of other faiths and the same prima facie attracts Section 295A IPC.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed thus while dismissing a quashing petition filed by Reverend Father Vineet Vincent Pereira, who is facing charges under Section 295A IPC [Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs]
Case title - Archana Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 143
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a judicial order passed by a criminal court cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Relying on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Neeta Singh 2024, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi dismissed a plea filed seeking the quashing of a February 2026 order passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow.
Case title - Kishan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 144
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 144
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Sanju Bansal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, even though police-recorded confessional statements can't be part of the charge-sheets, it does not prevent the police from relying on such statements to proceed in an ongoing investigation.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla observed so while rejecting the anticipatory bail application of one Kishan Yadav. The applicant is accused of committing the murder of a 20-year-old youth with diminished mental capacity in Gorakhpur.
Case title - Anju And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145
A single judge of the Allahabad High Court on March 20 observed that an individual who is already married and has a living spouse cannot legally be permitted to enter into a live-in relationship with a third person without seeking a divorce from the earlier spouse.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made this observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by a couple (both married to different partners) seeking mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful life and to provide protection.
Case title - Rakesh Kumar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 146
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a daughter-in-law is not legally obligated to maintain her parents-in-law under the statutory provision of Section 125 CrPC or Section 144 BNSS.
Observing that the right to claim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS is a statutory right and is confined only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned therein, a bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh noted that parents-in-law do not fall within the ambit of the said provision
Case title - Rizwana And 2 Other vs. The State Of U.P. And 3 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 147
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 147
The Allahabad High Court has observed that persons governed by Muslim personal law are not precluded from seeking custody of a minor under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X said that while personal law may guide the Court in determining the rights of parties; however, the paramount consideration is always the welfare of the minor, which overrides all other considerations.
Case title - Brajpal @ Birjju @ Bijendra and another vs State of U.P. and another along with connected cases 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 148
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 148
The Allahabad High Court has referred to a larger bench the question as to whether an anticipatory bail application is maintainable after an accused is summoned in a complaint case involving a non-bailable offence.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla expressed disagreement with a 2025 coordinate bench ruling in Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 293, wherein it was held that anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is not maintainable upon the mere issuance of a summons as there is no apprehension of arrest by the police without a warrant.
Case title - In re vs Ashutosh Kumar Mishra 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 149
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 149
The Allahabad High Court dropped criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate who had accused a single judge of working under government pressure in open court.
A bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay closed the matter after accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the advocate.
Case title - Shiva Kant Dubey vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 150
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 150
The Allahabad High Court has observed that it is common knowledge that a wife generally exaggerates her husband's income in maintenance proceedings, but such exaggerated statements do not automatically warrant the initiation of perjury proceedings against her under Section 340 CrPC.
A bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh passed this order while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court's order rejecting his application to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC r/w Section 379 BNSS against his wife.
Case Title: Doli vs. Shakuntla Devi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 151
The Allahabad High Court has held that in case of a Hindu minor's interest in the undivided joint family property, no guardian can be appointed to manage such interests. It held that the same will be taken care by the adult member of the family, as per Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal held
“it is clear that in case a minor has an interest in joint family property, it is the adult member who is either male or female, would take care of the property and there is no need for appointment of any guardian.”
Case Title: Shahban And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152
While holding that the mosque in question was illegally constructed on the Gram Sabah land which was recorded as 'Khalihan' in the revenue records, the Allahabad High Court removed penalty imposed under U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the present mosque occupants as there was no material to link them to the construction of the mosque and did not have any title, right or interest in the property.
Case Title: Ajay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 153
The Allahabad High Court has held that for seeking compensation due to death COVID-19, it is necessary to produce the test reports which prove that the deceased had COVID-19 or a death certificate which records that the deceased died due to COVID-19 infection.
While rejecting a claim for compensation for death due to COVID-19 allegedly contracted while on election duty, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad held that for award of compensation, “A claimant must establish a case of covid infection qua the victim by placing test reports or must have a covid death certificate to rely upon.”
Case title - Akul Rastogi vs Shubhangi Rastogi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 154
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 154
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband's obligation to maintain his wife continues even after his death, and the widow can claim maintenance from her father-in-law.
"It is well settled that a husband is obliged to maintain his wife. This position has emanated from situations, where the spouses have separated and the wife has sought for maintenance, either on the criminal side or under maintenance provisions in Hindu law. So much so, this obligation of the husband to maintain the wife attaches even after death of the husband in the law allowing the widow to claim maintenance from her father-in-law", a Bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh observed.
Case title - Anamika Tiwari And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 155
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 155
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a woman is the absolute owner of her 'streedhan' property and a legally wedded wife can't face a criminal trial for alleged breach of trust under Section 406 IPC for allegedly taking it away.
A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash observed that properties given to a woman before, at the time of, or after marriage constitute her 'streedhan' and do not become the joint property of the husband and wife.
Case Title: Mariya Zafar and another v. State of UP Thru. Pric. Sec. Home Lucknow and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 156
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 156
The Allahabad High Court summoned the income tax returns of a woman's husband for ascertaining his income.
In proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, the wife-applicant had filed an application seeking production of the income tax returns of the husband as he had disputed being an architect and claimed to be a labour. The Trial Court rejected the application under Section 91 of CrPC for production of the returns on grounds that there was no need to summon such records.
Transfer Of Maintenance Proceedings From Family Court To Gram Nyayalaya Valid: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Civil Court Bar Association And Another v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 157
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Court to the Gram Nyayalayas under Section 16 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008.
Observing that the provisions, under which the order of the transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Court to Gram Nyayalaya was passed, were not challenged, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,
“applying the settled principle that a later enactment prevails over an earlier enactment in case of inconsistency, the transfer of maintenance proceedings from the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984 to the Gram Nyayalaya under Section 16 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 is held to be valid.”
Case Title: Kallayya Pattadamath @ Akshay Pattadamath v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. .And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 158
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 158
The Allahabad High Court has held that when the accused is in judicial custody, he/she must be provided a legal counsel by the Trial Court for filing discharge application and if the accused refuses such counsel, then a hearing must be afforded on question of framing of issues with assistance of a legal counsel.
Referring to Sections 262 and 263 of BNSS, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra held
“it becomes crystal clear that, on the one hand, the statute gives an opportunity to the accused to move an application for discharge within 60 days of supply of copies of documents and the court has also been prescribed a time limit of 60 days for framing of charge, which commences from the date of the first hearing on charge.”
NOMINAL INDEX
Canara Bank Branch Office and 1 other Versus Sri Ashok Kumar @ Heera Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 1
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
Smt. Shahin Begum and 9 others Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 3
Km. Dimple Singh and 12 others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 4
Nitish Maurya and 4 others Versus State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 5
Smt Raziya Kahtoon Versus State of U.P Thru Prin Secy Stamp and Registration Lko and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 6
Suryadev Pathak Versus Union of India and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 7
Soni v. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 8
Shadab vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 9
Pravesh Singh Tomar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 10
Monika vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 11
Mohd. Irfan Siddiqui vs. State Of U.P. Through Secy. Home And Anr 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 12
Man Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 13
Ful Chandra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 14
Sanjay Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 15
Irfan Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 16
Suman Verma and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 17
Dr. Abdul Ghaffar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 18
Sapna @ Sapna Choudhary vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 19
Kuldeep Verma vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 20
Bhagwat Kushwaha vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 21
Poem Jaiswar v. Union Of India And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 22
Ache Lal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 23
Sangam Lal Versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 24
Umme Farva vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 25
Shreya Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 26
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 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 27
M/S Wizitec Private Limited Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 28
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
Himanshu Srivastava and 2 others vs. State of U.P and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 30
Shyam Mohan vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 31
Smt. Kashmiri And 3 Others Versus U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Regional Manager And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 32
Banaras Hindu University And 4 Others v. Nameirakpamshangbanabi Devi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 33
Avneesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 34
Dinesh Kumar Jindal v. Debt Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 35
Sudhindra V. Desai And 5 Others Versus U.P. Pollution Control Board Thru. Its Assistant Environmental Engineer Shri Ashutosh Pandey Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 36
Vineeta vs. Dr Ved Prakash Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 37
Faisal Khan vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Thru. Chief Executive Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 38
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
Umang Rastogi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Chandresh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 41
Avanish Chandra Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 42
Abhinav Gaur vs. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Khalsa Medical Store Thru. Prop. Yashwant Singh vs Reserve Bank Of India Thru. Governor And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 44
Rajesh Kukreja vs. State of U.P. and Anr 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Jyoti Kamal and others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 46
Madhukar Sharma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Raju Alias Rajkumar vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 48
Mohammad Shahzad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 50
Arju @ Vimal vs. Umakant Parasar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 52
Gaurav Goswami vs. Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar (Rtd.) and 12 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Moti Lal Yadav vs. Chief Election Commissioner Election Commisn.of India and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Avneesh Gupta (Minor) vs. Consortium of National Law Universities 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 55
Sunil Kandu @ Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 56
Satti Din and another vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 57
Bechan Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 58
Dev Sahayam Deniyal Raj And Another vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 59
Vijendra Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Abhay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 61
XXX v. Chairman U.G.C. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Priyank Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 63
Shyam Sundar and another vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 64
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 65
Kamalesh Agnihotri @ Kamal And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 66
Anoop Kumar And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 67
Ravi Joel Tudu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 68
Sunita Minor And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 8 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 69
Ashish Shukla vs State Of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Mohd. Azeem Idrishi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another and connected case 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 71
Abhishek Jaiswal vs. PNB Head Office Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 72
Dinesh And 8 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 73
Samiya And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Moti Lal Yadav vs. Honble Chief Minister Thru. Cabinet Secy. State Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Shivam Chaurasiya Thru. His Brother Mr. Manas Chaurasiya Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 76
Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 77
Alice Lee @ Li Tengli vs. Union Of India And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 78
Kunal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Abdul Qadir And Another v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 80
Sonu And 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Jai Kumar Aggarwal vs. Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Khush R Goel vs Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Smt Mugga Devi And 4 Others v. Makkhan Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 84
Ram Shanker Shukla And Another vs. Madhukar Shukla And 7 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 85
Sunil Kumar Gupta Alias Sunil Chain Thru. His Son Akshit Gupta vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs , New Delhi And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Azeem Ahmad Khan Alias Abeem Ahmad And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 87
Vikas Chaudhary And Another v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 88
Mani Miraj Alias Ramdi Miraj Alam vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 89
Shivdhari Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 90
Prema Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Noori And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Raees vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93
In Re vs. Shri Hari Narayan Pandey Advocate 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Hasnen vs Union of India and 5 others and connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Kirti Verma vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Sachin Arya @ Sachin Bhartiya And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Seema Gupta vs State of U.P and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Sanu @ Rashid vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 99
Harshit @ Honey vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 100
Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad And Another v. Indra Mohan Sachdev 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 101
Jagdamba Harijan Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 102
Dayanand and 2 others Versus Mohan @ Ghure 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 103
Union Of India Thru G.M. Diesel Locomotive And Another vs. Central Information Commission New Delhi And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 104
Kishori Lal vs. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 105
Amit Gupta And 5 Others vs. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health And Family Welfare New Delhi And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 106
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 107
Mansoor Ansari vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 108
State of U.P. Thru.Prin./Addl.Chief Secy.Deptt.Housing and Urban Planning Govt. U.P. Lko.and Anr vs Anil Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 109
Vansh Nigam and another vs Workmens Compensation Commissioner/Collector Lakhimpur Kheri and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 110
Sachin Kumar Versus Smt Nidhi Dohre And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 111
Anendra Singh v. Ram Kishan and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 112
Reena v. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 113
Munazir Khan vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 114
Sandeep Audichya vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 115
Sukhnandan vs. Union of India Thru. General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 116
Magghu Ram v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Revenue Deptt. ) Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 117
Lalsa Devi Versus State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 118
Babloo Yadav @ Billa vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 119
Alka Singhania Versus Smt. Shilpi Agarwal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 120
Dalbir And 3 Others Versus Board Of Revenue Prayagraj And 18 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 121
Kusum Mishra And Another Versus U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru. Executive Engineer Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 122
Mohd. Faizan and 2 others vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 123
Rameshwar Singh vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 124
Mohd. Yaqoob and another v. District Registrar/A.D.M. Fandr Bahraich and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 125
Angad Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 126
Shailesh Kumar Yadav Ips vs. Union Of India And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 127
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko And Another vs. Anshul Jagannath 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 128
Lakshmi And 10 Others Versus State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 129
Bihari Lal vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 130
Veer Pal Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 131
Geeta Rani And 2 Others Versus Smt. Maya Devi And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 132
. Geeta Devi and another Versus State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 133
Kafi Ahmed Khan vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 134
Paras @ Ram Paras Versus Ram Charitra and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 135
Neha Jaykishore Mehrolia v. Rahul Sisodia 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 136
Shiv Shankar v. Mahavir @ Ghura Turha And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 137
Hasina Khatoon vs State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 138
Pradeep Agarwal vs. State of U.P. and Another and connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati Jagatguru Shankaracharya Jyotishpeethadheeshwar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 140
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 141
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 142
Archana Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 143
Kishan Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 144
Anju And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145
Rakesh Kumar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 146
Rizwana And 2 Other vs. The State Of U.P. And 3 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 147
Brajpal @ Birjju @ Bijendra and another vs State of U.P. and another along with connected cases 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 148
In re vs Ashutosh Kumar Mishra 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 149
Shiva Kant Dubey vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 150
Doli vs. Shakuntla Devi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 151
Shahban And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 152
Ajay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Akul Rastogi vs Shubhangi Rastogi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 154
Anamika Tiwari And 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 155
Mariya Zafar and another v. State of UP Thru. Pric. Sec. Home Lucknow and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 156
Civil Court Bar Association And Another v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Kallayya Pattadamath @ Akshay Pattadamath v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. .And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 158