NOMINAL INDEX 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)...
NOMINAL INDEX
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
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
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.