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...
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
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 Buard 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
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
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.
OTHER UPDATES OF THE WEEK
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been moved before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) seeking a direction to the Uttar Pradesh CM, Yogi Adityanath, to decide on the constitution of a dedicated Other Backward Classes (OBC) Commission ahead of the 2026 Panchayat elections.
The PIL has been filed by Advocate Moti Lal Yadav, which argues that the proposal to form a 6-member dedicated OBC commission has been pending before the state cabinet (led by Respondent No. 1, CM Adityanath) for more than 5 months.
Case Title: Abhinav Gaur v. Union of India and Others.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea has been filed in the Allahabad High Court challenging the decision of the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) to allow the counselling of SC/ST/OBC students who scored -40 (Minus 40) out of 800 marks in the NEET-PG 2025 exams.
The Petitioner, Advocate Abhinav Gaur, terms the move ultra vires to Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The plea challenges the decision on the grounds that a substantial reduction in the Cut-off marks for NEET-PG 2025 will undermine the sanctity of a merit-based selection process.