NOMINAL INDEX 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...
NOMINAL INDEX
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
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
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.
OTHER UPDATES OF THE WEEK
The Allahabad High Court expressed its deep concern over the state of affairs after the State Government admitted before it that there are significant infrastructure gaps in the implementation of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015, across the state.
Essentially, the Uttar Pradesh Government's counsel informed the Court that there was no information regarding the availibiliyt of the recognised institutions, namely "fit persons," "group foster care institutions," "group foster care givers," and "case workers" as contemplated in the JJ Act, 2015, read with JJ Rules, 2016, for the entire state.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) last week issued notice to the Advocate General on a petition challenging the vires of the Uttar Pradesh X-Ray Technician Service Rules, 1986, which currently exclude degree holders from appointment to the post of X-Ray Technician.
Finding a prima facie case for consideration, a Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai posted the matter for February 27.