NOMINAL INDEX
M/s Knots India Carpets Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 349
Ram Autar And Others Vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 350
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Lalta Prasad Sharma And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 351
Rohtash Singh @ Rohtash v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 352
Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Dhiman v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 353
Mohit Ashok vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 354
Tapish Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 355
Mahesh Chand vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 356
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Appointment And Personnel Deptt. Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 357
Narendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 358
Khalid and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 359
Radha Charan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 360
Rubi and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 361
Pushpa Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 362
Vijendra Singh Alias Bijendra Singh v. Noida Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 363
Semma Bharti vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 364
Mimansa Nangia And 2 Others v. Shivani Hospital Private Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 365
Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 366
Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 367
Shaheed and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 368
Kamrunnisha v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 369
S v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 370
Janardan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 371
Raviprakash v. Dalip Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 372
Puneet Rastogi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 373
Tilluka @ Manoj vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 374
Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India Through Chief Election Commissioner 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 375
Mahnaz and another vs State of UP along with connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 376
Anil Chaudhary vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 377
Rahul @ Rahul Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 378
Mohd. Ashfaque Ansari Alias Ashfaque Ansari Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 379
Gandhivadi Adhivakta Vichar Manch v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Moti Lal Yadav v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 381
Majlis Ulema-E-Hind, Through Its General Secretary Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi vs State Of U.P., Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Lucknow And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 382
Tushar Agrawal v. Ganesh Prasad 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 383
Sushila Versus Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 384
Veer Singh Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 386
Pawan Kumar vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 387
Rajvir And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 388
Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389
M/S Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Versus Union of India, Thru. General Manager, North Eastern Railway And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 390
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: M/s Knots India Carpets Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 349
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 349
While dealing with a writ petition seeking No Objection Certificate for construction of a hotel on the land in question, the Allahabad High Court held that the land cannot be claimed as 'pond' without challenging the sale deed for the land which was made 113 years ago.
Case title - Ram Autar And Others Vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 350
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 350
The Allahabad High Court has categorically ruled that a viscera report cannot be relied upon to secure a conviction if the report was never specifically put before the accused during their examination under Section 313 CrPC.
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay clarified that merely questioning an accused with regard to poison being administered to the deceased would be insufficient if the primary scientific evidence (the viscera report) is withheld from them.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Lalta Prasad Sharma And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 351
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 351
The Allahabad High Court has held that Permanent Lok Adalat's mention of 'conciliation attempted but failed' is a general reference which is not legally sufficient as per the judgment of the High Court in Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti vs. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others.
In Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India, Basti vs. Permanent Lok Adalat, Basti and others, the Court had held that the function of the Permanent Lok Adalat is to first try conciliation and settlement between the parties. If the same fails, it must record (briefly) the proceedings in the award so that its decision on the dispute is clear. It held that absence of conciliation attempts would render the award legally invalid as it would be against the provisions of the Act.
Case Title: Rohtash Singh @ Rohtash v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 352
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 352
The Allahabad High Court has held that a spot inspection conducted by the District Magistrate in stamp duty deficiency proceedings without issuing notice to the party is an irregularity, and not an illegality, where no prejudice is caused to the party.
The Court held that under Rule 7(3) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, it is not mandatory for the Collector to conduct an inspection, but where one is conducted, notice ought to be given to the parties to the instrument.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Dhiman v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 353
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 353
The Allahabad High Court has held that assets derived from unknown sources of income cannot presumed to be from scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
“A person may have assets derived from unknown source of income, however, that by itself cannot be presumed that the aforesaid assets are derived from schedule offence,” held Justice Vikram D. Chauhan while granting bail to accused in illegal mining in Yamuna Basin case.
Case title – Mohit Ashok vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 354
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 354
The Allahabad High Court today refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a CBI probe into the Ram Mandir donation row, noting a similar plea with similar prayers has already been filed before the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla was hearing the petition filed by practising Advocate Mohit Ashok, seeking an independent, credible, and time-bound investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged "embezzlement of donation funds" (including monetary, gold, and silver) at the temple.
Case Title: Tapish Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 355
Citaton : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 355
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that a judgment is not erroneous and subject to review merely because of omission, misplacement or non-tagging of a particular page, unless such omission results in patent error apparent on the face of the record or causes manifest injustice.
Justice Karunesh Singh Pawar held,
“…mere omission, misplacement or non-tagging of a particular page in a compilation of documents, by itself, would not automatically render the judgment under review erroneous, unless it is further shown that such omission has resulted in a patent error apparent on the face of the record or has occasioned manifest miscarriage of justice. Review cannot be entertained on every procedural irregularity or alleged defect in presentation of papers.”
Case title - Mahesh Chand vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 356
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 356
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a 41-year-old criminal appeal, upholding the 1985 conviction of a Consolidation Lekhpal who was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of ₹300, nearly half a century ago.
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Kumar thus upheld the 1-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to him. He was directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 4 weeks to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Appointment And Personnel Deptt. Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 357
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 357
The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings conducted under Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 stand vitiated where no oral inquiry is conducted and no oral evidence is led by the department to prove the documents relied upon in support of the charge-sheet.
It held that a finding of guilt against a charged employee cannot rest on documents which have not been proved through evidence.
Case Title: Narendra Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 358
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 358
The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of preventive detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 against a person already in jail is vitiated by non-application of mind, where the Detaining Authority does not know, or wrongly knows, the case in which the detenu is in custody.
It held that without knowing the case, the Detaining Authority cannot form an opinion, based on objective material, that the detenu is likely to be released on bail, which is an essential precondition for preventively detaining a person already in judicial custody.
Case title - Khalid and another vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 359
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 359
The Allahabad High Court has held that if a first informant dies a natural death before the commencement of a criminal trial or before testifying, the contents of the FIR cannot be proved through a scribe or an investigating officer.
A Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Saurabh Srivastava clarified that if an informant's death has no connection whatsoever with the complaint lodged, the contents of the FIR will not be admissible in evidence, and the benefit of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be availed in such cases.
Case title - Radha Charan vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 360
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 360
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an Election Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to verify or declare a caste certificate forged; hence, a duly issued certificate cannot be challenged or scrutinized in an election petition.
A bench of Justice Neeraj Tiwari made this observation while dismissing an election petition filed by one Radha Charan, who sought to set aside the election of Vinay Prakash Gond from the 335 Ram Kola Legislative Assembly Constituency in Kushinagar district.
Case title - Rubi and others vs State of UP and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 361
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 361
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Shariat/Muslim Personal Law permitting puberty as the competent age for a girl to marry runs clearly in the teeth of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, as well as the POCSO Act.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Achal Sachdev further observed that the age of marriage, for every citizen of the country, irrespective of religion, is same, as has been spelt out by the PCMA.
Case title - Pushpa Devi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Revenue Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 362
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 362
The Allahabad High Court recently reiterated that a "myopic interpretation" cannot be given to COVID-Duty so as to confine it only to persons specially assigned to discharge their duties in the treatment of people in hospitals.
The bench thus held that essential service workers, such as electricity department employees who ensured uninterrupted electricity supply to hospitals and oxygen plants, are entitled to be treated as "COVID Warriors".
Case Title: Vijendra Singh Alias Bijendra Singh v. Noida Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 363
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 363
The Allahabad High Court has held that a civil suit seeking redemption of a mortgaged property which has already been sold pursuant to an award passed under the UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 is barred under Section 111(d) of the Act, as the relief cannot be granted without interfering with the award.
Section 111 of the UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 bars the jurisdiction of civil and revenue courts in matters under the Act. Clause (d) extends the bar to any other order or award made under the Act.
Case title - Semma Bharti vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 364
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 364
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that police department personnel deployed for the prevention and control of COVID-19, as well as for spreading public awareness and helping infected persons, are fully entitled to be treated as "COVID Warriors" under the State's welfare scheme.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary passed the order while directing the Uttar Pradesh government to release ₹50 lakh ex gratia compensation in favour of the widow of a Head Constable who died after contracting the virus in April 2021.
Case Title: Mimansa Nangia And 2 Others v. Shivani Hospital Private Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 365
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 365
The Allahabad High Court has held that the presence of the buyer or the seller is not mandatory at the time of execution and registration of a sale deed in Uttar Pradesh, as Section 32A of the Registration Act, 1908, as applicable in the State, is different from the provision contained in the Central Act.
Case title - Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 366
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 366
The Allahabad High Court affirmed that the testimony of eyewitnesses who are close family members of the victim of the crime cannot be discarded solely on account of their relationship with the victim.
The Court added that a close relative is a natural witness who would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one
Case title - Ranjeet Patel vs State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 367
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 367
The Allahabad High Court observed that if a woman dies an unnatural death within the four walls of her matrimonial home and a strong chain of circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the accused, the burden lies upon the inmates of the house to explain the circumstances of her unnatural death under Section 106 Evidence Act.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Saurabh Srivastava added that if the accused fails to offer a cogent explanation for a fact that is inculpatory and especially within their knowledge, it would be added to the chain of circumstances appearing against them.
Case title - Shaheed and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 368
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 368
The Allahabad High Court has held that a conviction under Section 34 IPC (Common Intention) is legally unsustainable unless the court reaches a definite conclusion that the accused acted in "prior concert" and pursuant to a prearranged plan.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi made these observations while acquitting the accused-appellant (Laddan) in a murder case dating back to 1987.
Case Title: Kamrunnisha v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 369
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 369
The Allahabad High Court has held that once the Government has itself decided to transfer quarters in a weavers' colony to the occupant-weavers in possession, the death of the weaver cannot be a ground to deny the same rights to his widow.
Observing that weaving in India is a hereditary art passed on to the next generation, the Court held that the family of a weaver cannot be displaced from the colony upon the death of the head of the family.
Case Title: S v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 370
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 370
The Allahabad High Court has held that Family Court can grant a declaration of divorce /Talaq under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 even if the Talaq is under Muslim Personal Law and is uncontested by the parties or anyone else.
Case Title: Janardan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Water Resources Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 371
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 371
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Monday reiterated that the statutory period of limitation for a claim cannot be extended by repeatedly sending letters or belated representations to the authorities, without any admission of liability by the state-respondents.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that once the clock of limitation starts ticking, it cannot be stopped and/or extended by sending of letters/communications in a "one-way traffic".
Case Title: Raviprakash v. Dalip Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 372
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 372
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person claiming ownership of a property by adverse possession cannot succeed where he has been depositing electricity bills and property tax in the name of the previous owner, observing that such conduct amounts to an acknowledgment of the previous owner's title and demolishes the plea of adverse possession.
Justice Sandeep Jain made the observation while dismissing an appeal against the rejection of a plaint seeking permanent injunction on the basis of alleged ownership acquired through adverse possession.
Case Title: Puneet Rastogi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 373
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 373
The Allahabad High Court has held that once domestic violence is committed, the husband is not absolved of liabilities under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 even after passing of a divorce decree.
Justice Brij Raj Singh held,
“An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the husband from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”
Case title - Tilluka @ Manoj vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 374
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 374
The Allahabad High Court clarified the exact procedure under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 162 of the CrPC, which needs to be adopted for contradicting a witness during a trial based on omissions in his previous statement made to the police u/s 161 of the CrPC.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi held that a casual confrontation of a witness in the dock with the statement taken down by the Police, where there was an omission, cannot serve the purpose of the proviso to Section 162 CrPC.
Case Title: Jagdish Singh v. Election Commission of India Through Chief Election Commissioner 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 375
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 375
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002 which provides for locating constituencies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in those areas where the proportion of their population to the total population is comparatively large.
It held that a voter cannot claim that his right to vote is violated merely because his constituency has remained reserved for the Scheduled Castes for decades.
Case title - Mahnaz and another vs State of UP along with connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 376
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 376
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a husband and his family members in a 2017 murder and dowry death case while discarding the deceased's dying declaration, after observing that it was made with the intent to “wreak vengeance” rather than state the truth.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant thus set aside the trial court's judgment that had sentenced the 5 accused to life imprisonment.
Case title - Anil Chaudhary vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 377
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 377
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an appellate authority acting under Section 6 of the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, does not have the statutory power to remand the matter back to the District Magistrate for deciding it afresh on merits.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed that the statute vests the appellate authority with the jurisdiction to either "confirm the order, with or without modification, or set it aside".
Case title - Rahul @ Rahul Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 378
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 378
The Allahabad High Court quashed the orders passed by the district authorities declaring a man a 'Goonda' under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. It observed that the Act should not be allowed to be misused as a "tool of oppression" of innocent persons.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the Act is a "powerful tool for the control and suppression of the 'Goondas'" and should be used "very sparingly in very clear cases of 'public disorder' or for the maintenance of 'public order'".
Case Title - Mohd. Ashfaque Ansari Alias Ashfaque Ansari Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 379
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 379
The Allahabad High Court refused to grant bail to a man accused of harbouring a Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent and passing sensitive data about the Indian Armed Forces to Pakistan.
A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava also clarified that the provisions of Section 437(6) CrPC are not mandatory and cannot be interpreted to grant an absolute and indefeasible right to bail in favour of the accused.
Case title (PIL plea 1) - Gandhivadi Adhivakta Vichar Manch v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 380
Case title (PIL plea 2) - Moti Lal Yadav v. Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 381
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 381
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has refused to entertain two more Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions seeking high-level probes, including a Judicial Commission and a Special Investigation Team (SIT), into allegations of theft of donations for the Ayodhya Ram Mandir.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla disposed of the petitions on July 7, noting that the subject matter is already pending before the Supreme Court in a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Majlis Ulema-E-Hind, Through Its General Secretary Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi vs State Of U.P., Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Lucknow And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 382
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 382
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by a body of Shia scholars challenging the alleged 'arbitrary' police action of removing portraits of recognized Iranian leaders.
The PIL petition was filed by Majlis Ulema-E-Hind, through its General Secretary, Maulana Syed Kalbe Jawad Naqvi, seeking to restrain the Uttar Pradesh Police from interfering with the display of portraits of leaders, including Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Al-Sistani.
Case Title: Tushar Agrawal v. Ganesh Prasad 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 383
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 383
The Allahabad High Court has held that after the amendment to the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with effect from October 1, 2018, the grant of specific performance of a contract is no longer discretionary and courts are bound to enforce it, subject to Sections 11(2), 14 and 16 of the Act.
Holding that the amended provisions govern agreements executed after that date, the Court upheld a decree directing specific performance of a registered agreement to sell.
Case Title - Sushila Versus Rajiv Kumar Chaudhary 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 384
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 384
The Allahabad High Court has observed that where a man and a woman have lived together as husband and wife and the relationship is otherwise established, strict proof of a valid marriage should not be insisted upon so as to defeat a claim under Section 125 CrPC.
Referring to the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Badshah vs Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr, a bench of Justice Achal Sachdev stressed that a purposive and socially contextual approach must be adopted while dealing with maintenance claims, rather than adhering to a purely adversarial or technical interpretation of the law
Case Title: Veer Singh Versus State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 385
Noting that the offence of rape is a legal conclusion and not a medical one, the Allahabad High Court on Thursday confirmed the conviction of a man in connection with a 1983 rape case.
The Court clarified that if the testimony of a prosecutrix is free from any basic infirmity, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction even if the medical evidence doesn't strictly corroborate the prosecution's case.
Case Title: Tata Projects Limited v. Union of India and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 386
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 386
While granting relief to Tata Projects Limited, the Allahabad High Court has held that the National Highways Authority of India, being “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot arbitrarily terminate a highway construction contract mid-term and fasten the contractor with liability for delay when the delay was caused by the Authority's own failure to hand over encumbrance-free land with a clear right of way, as it was bound to do under the contract.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 387
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 387
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the life sentence of a man convicted of murdering his wife as it found his deceptive actions, like giving false assurances, lodging a false police report and eventually absconding, as “relevant conduct” under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.
A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani thus dismissed the jail appeal filed by the convict (Pawan Kumar), who challenged a 2016 judgment of a Hardoi Sessions Court convicting him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Case title - Rajvir And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 388
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 388
The Allahabad High Court has explicitly ruled that an accused's “plea of alibi” must be proved by leading evidence during a criminal trial and the Investigating Officer (IO) cannot unilaterally accept it to be true to file a Final Report.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that it would be "gross illegality” if the IO files a final report relying on the statements of witnesses who supported the applicants' plea of alibi.
Case title - Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 389
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a woman does not qualify as a "legally wedded wife" and hence is not entitled to claim maintenance from her partner under Section 125 CrPC if she began residing with him without first divorcing her first husband.
A bench of Justice Achal Sachdev thus set aside the Family Court's order to the extent that it granted maintenance to the woman from her partner, the man she purportedly married without obtaining a divorce from her first husband.
Case Title: M/S Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Versus Union of India, Thru. General Manager, North Eastern Railway And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 390
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 390
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) came down heavily on the North Eastern Railway (NER) authorities for their 'whimsical' and “mala fide” actions in repeatedly rejecting the financial bid of a sister government enterprise, the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. (KRCL), on flimsy grounds.
Terming the NER's actions as "nothing short of harassment", a bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary quashed a June 8, 2026, letter that rejected KRCL's bid due to a purportedly incorrect beneficiary name in a bank guarantee.
News updates
The Allahabad High Court on July 6 issued notices to the Centre and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), seeking their responses to a plea challenging an order of an Agra Court refusing a survey of the Taj Mahal.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal passed the order after hearing Advocate Hari Shankar Jain, appearing for the petitioner, who claims that the world-famous monument is actually an ancient Hindu temple named "Tejo Mahalaya", dedicated to Lord Shiva.
The Allahabad High Court last week took exception to the non-cooperative stance of the social media platform 'X' Corp (formerly Twitter) in a cybercrime investigation. The HC said that multinational digital platforms/handles cannot claim immunity from accountability under Indian Law.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant observed thus:
"Non-cooperation of officials of the social media handle 'X' with police investigations in such matters cannot be countenanced by this Court. Social media handles are not immune from accountability to Indian laws and investigation agencies acting in pursuance of powers vested by law. The arms of the Indian law are long enough to reach any transgression and strong enough to bring the offenders to justice".
The Allahabad High Court on July 6 summoned the Additional Chief Secretary of the Minorities Welfare Department, Uttar Pradesh, to explain the State's continuous failure to appoint the Chairman and Members of the Uttar Pradesh Commission for Minorities, whose previous tenure ended in 2024.
Taking strong exception to the State's conduct, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla termed the government's approach “highly disrespectful” to an earlier order passed by a co-ordinate bench (headed by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali).
The Allahabad High Court has expressed grave concern regarding the grant of remission to a convict sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, who was released after serving only 5 years, 10 months, and 18 days of his sentence.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Divesh Chandra Samant termed it as a "disturbing state of affairs".
The Allahabad High Court sought explanation from Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi as to why maintenance was granted to a wife from her first husband, when the wife had disclosed about her remarriage after divorce.
It is the revisionist's case that the parties were granted a divorce decree on 30.07.2025 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. It was submitted that the husband-revisionist filed an appeal against the divorce decree, however, just after one month of the decree, the wife had remarried. It was submitted that the fact of second marriage of the wife was disclosed by her on affidavit.
The Allahabad High Court has summoned the Managing Director, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited over denial of compensation to the family of a deceased worker who was electrocuted while rectifying the fault on an electric pole.
The Allahabad High Court has ordered an inquiry into a litigant's allegation that an advocate had appeared on his behalf without authority, observing that the serious allegations made in the review application had "shaken the conscience of the Court."
Justice Siddharth Nandan passed the order while hearing a review application filed by Shiv Shankar Singh, who had been arrayed as Respondent No. 6 in an earlier writ petition concerning the management of Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College, Ghazipur.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has issued notices on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions to ban minors' access to the online gaming platform 'ROBLOX' and similar other virtual platforms.
A bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the order on a petition filed by Rani Singh, a practising lawyer of the High Court, who appeared in person.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has strongly questioned the Uttar Pradesh government over its decision to appoint Gram Pradhans as 'Administrators' of Panchayats following the expiry of their constitutional 5-year tenure.
Taking serious note of the State's actions under Section 12(3-A) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla observed that the government's orders appeared to have been passed in direct defiance of an earlier Division Bench judgment (Prem Lal Patel vs State Of UP 2000) that had declared similar provisions unconstitutional.
The Allahabad High Court temporarily transferred the custody of a 5-year-old girl to her father, observing that continuing in her mother's custody would mean she will certainly be 'spoiled'.
The Court found that the minor was being used as a 'pawn' in a matrimonial dispute and had been "heavily tutored" by the mother to make sexual abuse allegations against the father.
"After having interaction with the corpus, this Court is of the opinion that a lot of negative things has been tutored to the corpus and it is not good for her welfare if she remains with the respondent no.4…because if she continues to remain in her custody certainly she will be spoiled,” a bench of Justice Sandeep Jain observed.
The Allahabad High Court stayed the arrest of a man booked in Saharanpur for allegedly attempting to disrupt communal harmony through a Facebook post stating that "government-recognised terrorists in saffron colour" are creating chaos.
A bench of Justice Ajay Bhanot and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant granted interim protection to the petitioner (Mushahid Gada) after he claimed his social media account had been hacked.
In a special Sunday sitting convened today, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) intervened to order a status quo over a disputed piece of land purportedly belonging to an educational institution that has existed for over 150 years but is now facing an "imminent threat of demolition".
Hearing a plea filed by Methodist Mission Girls Junior High School, Civil Lines, Sitapur, a bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai directed the State Government authorities not to change the nature of the disputed property already in their possession.