LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: August 17 - August 23, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 589
Brijesh Singh Dagar vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 590
Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 591
Kalyan Health Care Products Pharmaceuticals Co-Operative Society Limited v. State of U P and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 592
Ashok Kumar And 7 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Karmik Anubhag And 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 593
Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, Thru. Sarvarahkar Swami Vishvesh Prapannacharya v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 594
Ravi Srivastava vs Ajay Sharma 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 595
Chhotey And Another vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 596
Satendra Siwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 597
Ex. Sub Inspector C.P. Pno-792590505 Deshraj Tyagi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 598
Jyotinjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 599
Mahendra Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Basic Education U.P.Civil Sectt.And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 600
Ved Pati Tripathi and 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and 4 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 601
Nitin vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 602
Amita Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. with Shivraj Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 603
Vegraj Singh And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 604
Chhajju Ram vs. Babu Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 605
Jagan vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 606
Asgar and others vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 607
SR and two others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 608
Suresh and 7 others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 609
Devendra Pratap Singh alias Rahul Farji and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 610
Shivam Yadav @ Chhotu vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 611
Sachindra Kumar Pandey vs Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 612
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 589
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 589
The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee who says the adverse entries in his confidential reports were never communicated to him cannot be called upon to prove that negative. It held that it is for the department to demonstrate that communication was in fact made.
The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh held,
“It will appear from above the Tribunal found omission on part of petitioner to demonstrate that he had not been communicated the adverse entries. The Tribunal appears to have lost sight that a fact can be proved, while the negative cannot. It was up to the department to demonstrate communication. Petitioner saying he had not been communicated the adverse entries of many years, could not be called upon to prove the negative. The Tribunal obviously erred in review of its earlier judgment based on the adverse entries, where the department had not resisted the case.”
Case Title: Brijesh Singh Dagar vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 590
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 590
The Allahabad High Court has held that excess salary paid to a Class-III employee because of the employer's own faulty pay fixation cannot be recovered from his post-retiral dues where the mistake is corrected 17 years later and the employee is not shown to have brought it about.
Directing refund of Rs. 11,51,840/- deducted from the retiral dues of a retired Head Constable (Driver), with 7% simple interest, Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,
“In the present case, it has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner was not responsible in any manner for alleged wrongful pay fixation. In the present case, according to the respondents, the wrong fixation of the salary of the petitioner was done in the year 2008, which has been sought to be corrected in the year 2025, after lapse of 17 years.”
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 591
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 591
The Allahabad High Court has held that a teacher appointed by a Committee of Management without prior approval of the post and without the qualification prescribed for it can only claim his salary from the Committee of Management which appointed him.
Petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Management on 23rd November 1999, when he held the degree of 'Shiksha Alankar'. Unpaid, he moved the High Court in 2000 and obtained an interim order, and the State's special appeal against it was dismissed in 2009. After a post of Assistant Teacher fell vacant on 30th June 2010, the Committee requisitioned a teacher in the Hindi subject.
Case Title: Manish Bansal vs. Jagdish Prasad Mittal and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 592
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 592
The Allahabad High Court has held that third party claiming independent title doesn't become necessary or proper party merely by asserting it in a small causes suit. It held that such a person can be brought on record only where his title has to be decided before the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief claimed can be determined.
Order I Rule 10 CPC governs the addition of parties to a suit. Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 provides for return of the plaint where the plaintiff's right and the relief he claims depend on proof or disproof of a title the Small Causes Court cannot finally decide.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar And 7 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Karmik Anubhag And 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 593
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 593
The Allahabad High Court has held that testing minimum eligibility condition for promotion prior to promotion to the post of Junior Assistant before written test is conducted is valid.
It held that after the enforcement of the U.P. Government Departmental Ministerial Cadre Service Rules, 2014, a minimum typing speed is an eligibility condition for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, and the typing test may therefore be held before the written test and interview prescribed by Rule 8(2) of the U.P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group 'C' Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001.
Case Title: Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, Thru. Sarvarahkar Swami Vishvesh Prapannacharya v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 594
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 594
The Allahabad High Court has slammed the Uttar Pradesh government for acquiring Shri Thakur Ram Jankiji diety's land at 'Sugriv Kila' in Ayodha for development of Shri Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple, without paying sale price.
The Court noted that the State was simultaneously questioning the deity's title and claiming that the land could not have been sold in the first place.
Case Title - Ravi Srivastava vs Ajay Sharma 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 595
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 595
The Allahabad High Court has observed that objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) cannot be used to reopen issues that could have been raised and decided during the original trial, unless the judgment-debtor is able to establish that the decree is void and inexecutable on the face of it.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X made the observation while dismissing a civil revision filed by a judgment-debtor challenging the rejection of his objections to the execution of an eviction decree.
Case Title - Chhotey And Another vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 596
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 596
The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted two men in connection with a 1978 robbery case, observing that the alleged recovery of a blanket and mosquito net from them did not furnish strong corroborative evidence, particularly since the articles were readily available in the market and bore no distinctive identifying marks.
The Court also found deficiencies in the identification evidence, including the delayed conduct of the test identification parade and the non-production of the torch allegedly used by witnesses to identify the accused.
Case title - Satendra Siwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 597
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 597
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order framing charges passed by a Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) is not an interlocutory order and can therefore be challenged by way of an appeal before the High Court under Section 21 of the 2008 Act.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi thus differed with the view of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shahid Yousuf v. NIA, wherein it was held that the order framing charges is interlocutory in nature and cannot be challenged in appeal under Section 21 of the 2008 Act.
Case Title: Ex. Sub Inspector C.P. Pno-792590505 Deshraj Tyagi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 598
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 598
The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings against a police officer are not barred merely because an F.I.R. has been lodged over the same incident, as Paragraph 489 of the U.P. Police Regulations permits a departmental trial whether or not the officer has been tried judicially.
It held that the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 cover the subject matter of Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, and any provision of the Regulations contrary to those Rules stands superseded. It held that the Rules, 1991 were framed under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 46 read with Sections 2 and 7 of the Police Act, 1861, superseding all earlier rules on the subject.
Case Title: Jyotinjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 599
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 599
The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the State's failure to pay professional fees to counsel engaged to defend its cases, observing that such non-payment could constrain advocates to approach the courts.
However, while dismissing an advocate's four writ petitions seeking recovery of about ₹4.8 crore as not maintainable, the Court held that disputed claims for professional fees arising from a contractual engagement cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Basic Education U.P.Civil Sectt.And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 600
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 600
The Allahabad High Court has held that the failure of the District Basic Education Officer to send his nominee to a selection committee under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules, 1984 does not vitiate the selection held in his absence. It held that salary cannot be withheld from the candidate so selected on that ground alone.
Case Title: Ved Pati Tripathi and 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and 4 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 601
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 601
The Allahabad High Court has held that a teacher of an aided institution cannot claim salary from the State exchequer merely on the strength of long continuance in service or subsequent administrative recognition, where the competent University had declined approval to the appointment and had directed a fresh selection which was never held.
The Court held that before a mandamus for payment of public money can be issued, the person claiming salary must first establish the existence and legality of the appointment from which the right is said to flow.
Brothel Customer Can't Be Prosecuted Under Immoral Traffic Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Nitin vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 602
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 602
The Allahabad High Court has held that a man who visits a brothel as a customer cannot be prosecuted under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as paying money for personal gratification is not procurement for the purpose of prostitution within the meaning of the Act.
Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary held,
“If a person visits a brothel as a customer, then at the most, he may be procuring a prostitute to satisfy his personal lust, but not for the 'purpose of prostitution' as defined under the Act (which requires commercia exploitation). Therefore, a customer who pays money for gratification cannot be prosecuted under Section 3, 5, or 7 of the Act.”
Reliable Dying Declaration Can Form Basis For Acquittal Too: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Amita Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. with Shivraj Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 603
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 603
The Allahabad High Court has held that a dying declaration which is reliable enough to sustain a conviction can equally form the basis of an acquittal, the standard of proof for an acquittal being merely preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court was hearing appeals by a husband and his mother against their conviction for cruelty and dowry death, in a case where the deceased had told a Magistrate, within two hours of the incident, that her burns were accidental.
Calling By Caste Name Without Intent To Humiliate Doesn't Attract SC/ST Act: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Vegraj Singh And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 604
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 604
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere use of the word “Chamar”, without material showing that it was used with the intention or knowledge of insulting the victim on the ground of her caste, does not prima facie disclose the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and cannot sustain an order summoning a person to face trial under Section 319 CrPC.
Case Title: Chhajju Ram vs. Babu Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 605
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 605
The Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of lis pendens applies even to a court auction sale, an involuntary alienation, and the auction purchaser takes the property subject to the outcome of a suit already pending over it.
The Court clarified that notice of the prior claim or agreement is not the basis for applying the doctrine; it operates because of the pendency of the litigation itself.
Case Title - Jagan vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 606
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 606
The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday acquitted a man convicted of culpable homicide in connection with the burning death of his wife, observing that the dying declaration was recorded in the presence of relatives/family members and therefore could not be safely relied upon.
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev allowed the criminal appeal filed by Jagan against the judgment of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Moradabad, which had convicted him under Section 304 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Case Title - Asgar and others vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 607
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 607
The Allahabad High Court has observed that to attract 'common intention' liability under Section 34 IPC, the participation of a co-accused must have a "functional relationship with the offense in question".
The bench clarified that the mere fact that several persons participated in the same occurrence does not make each of them liable for every offence committed during it.
A Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Padam Narain Mishra made this observation while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by an accused who was convicted of murder with the aid of Section 34 in connection with a 1985 case.
Case title - SR and two others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 608
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 608
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed an FIR lodged by a Judicial Official of the State against his doctor-wife and two others after finding that the criminal proceedings were "not bona fide but malicious and also an abuse of the process of Court".
A Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II allowed a writ petition filed by the wife and two others while setting aside the FIR lodged by a Judicial Officer in January this year.
Case title - Suresh and 7 others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 609
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 609
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted two accused in a nearly 4-decade-old murder case while observing that mere nomination in the FIR could not sustain their conviction under Section 149 IPC when the prosecution had failed to establish the existence of an unlawful assembly or its common object.
In fact, the Court found that no specific role or weapon was attributed to the two accused and the Prosecution failed to establish that the accused were part of the alleged Unlawful Assembly or shared a Common Object.
Case title - Devendra Pratap Singh alias Rahul Farji and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 610
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 610
The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, after noting that the mandatory joint meeting was not held and incorrect entries were made showing accused persons as being in jail despite the fact that they had been granted bail.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena thus allowed 4 connected writ petitions challenging the same FIR registered at a Police Station in Prayagraj, under Section 2/3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act.
Case title - Shivam Yadav @ Chhotu vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 611
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 611
The Allahabad High Court flagged what it described as the "clear misuse of the POCSO Act" by the parents of the victims who submit forged school certificates to show the victims as below 18 years of age.
The Court noted that this practice results in the false implication of several young boys who find it difficult to obtain bail and are easily convicted in view of the presumption provided under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Sachindra Kumar Pandey vs Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 612
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 612
The Allahabad High Court has held that the termination of a bank employee under a regulation enacted after the Constitution of India but declared as unconstitutional, has retrospective effect and thus such termination cannot stand and would be illegal.
In doing so the court reiterated that the situation is different in case of a law enacted prior to the Constitution which is only eclipsed by its conflict with Part III and may be revived if the fundamental right it offended is amended or authoritatively read differently.
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to constitute a fresh committee to consider the grievances of Advocates' Clerks and submit recommendations to the State for implementing a welfare policy for them.
In its order passed on August 13, the Court also rejected the recommendations of an earlier committee from January 2021.
A bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai found that members of the earlier committee were 'probably' unaware of the functioning, remuneration, duties and particularly, the role of Advocates' Clerks in the administration of justice.
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Superintendent of Police (SSP), Mathura, to appear personally and file an affidavit after CCTV footage produced by 2 accused in an NDPS case led the Court to prima facie find that a "false recovery" had been shown against them.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla termed the matter "very serious" and directed the SSP to provide a specific para-wise reply to the allegations made by the applicants.
While flagging a “disturbing state of affairs” over substantial vacancies in the GST Appellate Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court has noted that only 29 of the 92 sanctioned posts have been filled, leaving 63 posts vacant.
Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that mere issuance of circulars or advertisements cannot amount to compliance with the obligation to make the statutory appellate forum functional, and sought a fresh, comprehensive affidavit from the Centre detailing concrete steps taken to fill the vacancies.
Hearing the suo moto PIL concerning the severe waterlogging crisis in Prayagraj due to incessant rain, the Allahabad High Court today directed the Municipal Corporation, Prayagraj, to ensure that sufficient water pumps are deployed on the ground so that all low-lying areas of the city facing waterlogging issues are cleared within the next 24 hours.
A Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad passed the directions today while hearing the suo motu proceedings concerning waterlogging and failure of civic amenities in Prayagraj.