NOMINAL INDEX
Swami Shiv Swarupanand Ji Maharaj vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 514
Udayveer Singh vs. Rent Tribunal and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Sobaran & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Sarita Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Kanahi and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 518
Murari Lal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Manoharlal (Deceased) and 4 others vs. Jagdish Prasad Goel 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 520
P vs. V 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 521
Putti Lal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Power Lko. And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 522
Anil Verma vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523
Bharat Lal Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 524
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt Rachna Singh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 525
Rakesh vs State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 526
The Cricket Association of Uttar Pradesh vs. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 527
Indra Pati And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 528
Harikesh Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 529
Randhir and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 530
M/s Anu Enterprises through Proprietor Anu Singh vs. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow & 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 531
Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 532
Shivalik Small Finance Bank Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 533
Prof. Sanjay Mittal vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources and Development and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 534
Gurmel Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 535
Dr Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 536
Sant Ram Gautam Constable vs. State Of U.P. Thru Secy And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 537
Rayeesh Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 538
Dhanendra Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 539
State of U.P. and 3 Ors. vs. Raj Narain Yadav Constable 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 540
Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 541
Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 542
Rakesh Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543
Ankur Tandon vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 544
XXX vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 545
Hasan Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 546
M/s Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory vs. Mrs. Pratibha Gupta 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 547
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Swami Shiv Swarupanand Ji Maharaj vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 514
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 514
The Allahabad High Court has held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution casts a positive obligation on the State to create and maintain conditions in which lives are not lost to preventable disasters. It held that institutionalising the science of crowd behaviour in academia, administration and policy is a constitutional imperative.
Case Title: Udayveer Singh vs. Rent Tribunal and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 515
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 515
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputed signatures appearing on a photocopy of a document cannot be referred for scientific examination by a handwriting expert where the original has not been produced, since a photocopy does not preserve the characteristics on which a meaningful comparison of handwriting depends.
It held that the decisive consideration is whether the material proposed to be examined can furnish dependable scientific assistance, and that this assessment lies within the discretion of the authority before which the document is produced.
Case Title - Sobaran & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 516
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 516
The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of 3 men in a 1996 double murder case while observing that a conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained solely on the "last seen together" theory/evidence unless every link in the chain of circumstances is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court found that in this case, the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances and that the trial court had wrongly relied on unreliable "last seen" evidence and a doubtful recovery of the alleged murder weapons.
Case Title - Sarita Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 517
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 517
The Allahabad High Court affirmed the life sentence awarded to 2 women for killing a married woman by setting her ablaze while observing that a dying declaration which is voluntary, truthful and recorded when the maker is in a fit state of mind can, by itself, form the basis of conviction.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava thus dismissed the criminal appeals filed by Sarita Devi (sister-in-law of the deceased) and Malti Devi, challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, convicting them under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life.
Case title - Kanahi and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 518
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 518
The Allahabad High Court elaborately explained the step-by-step procedure governing the conduct of a Test Identification Parade (TIP).
The bench clarified that such an identification parade must strictly comply with the safeguards prescribed under the UP Police Regulations and the UP Jail Manual, as any unexplained delay or procedural lapse seriously undermines their evidentiary value.
Case title - Murari Lal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 519
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 519
The Allahabad High Court refused anticipatory bail to the aunt (bua) and uncle (fufa) of a woman allegedly murdered in an 'honour killing' in Agra, observing that the case involved serious allegations and that the applicants' custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the truth.
The Court also noted that the applicants had allegedly remained absconding for the past 7 months despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants.
Case Title: Manoharlal (Deceased) and 4 others vs. Jagdish Prasad Goel 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 520
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 520
The Allahabad High Court has held that the forum competent to decide a landlord-tenant dispute is determined by the law in force on the date the suit is instituted, and not by the law prevailing when the tenancy was terminated or the cause of action arose.
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that where a landlord-tenant dispute is instituted after the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 and is otherwise governed by that Act, the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain it.
Case Title: P vs. V 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 521
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 521
The Allahabad High Court has held that the convenience of the wife and the welfare of a minor child, though relevant considerations in matrimonial disputes, are not inflexible or overriding grounds for transfer of proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
It held that the decisive test is whether refusal of transfer would occasion a failure of justice, and that the burden of establishing genuine hardship lies on the applicant.
Case Title: Putti Lal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Power Lko. And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 522
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 522
The Allahabad High Court has held that once an employee is permanently absorbed in a cadre, he becomes a member of that cadre for all service purposes, and the cadre in which he was first appointed cannot thereafter be used to deny him the financial benefits attached to the cadre he was absorbed into.
It held that upon absorption, the lien on the earlier post and the incidents of the earlier cadre cease to govern the employee's service conditions.
Case Title: Anil Verma vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523
The Allahabad High Court has held that a medical representative is not a 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.
Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 provides that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as in force for the time being, shall apply to sales promotion employees as they apply to workmen within the meaning of that Act.
Character Certificate Can't Be Denied Merely Due To Pendency Of Criminal Case: Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Bharat Lal Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 524
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 524
The Allahabad High Court has held that a character certificate cannot be denied merely because a criminal case is pending against the applicant.
The bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran held that the pendency of a criminal case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, by itself, could not be a ground to reject an application for issuance of a character certificate.
“….we are of the opinion that due to pendency of the aforesaid case under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC, the application for grant of character certificate could not be rejected,”
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt Rachna Singh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 525
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 525
The Allahabad High Court has held that an insurance company cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge compensation awarded to a beneficiary under a government welfare scheme by relying on alleged violations of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed between the insurer and the State Government.
It held that such a dispute is essentially contractual in nature and must be pursued before an appropriate civil, commercial or arbitral forum.
Does Rejection Of Bail Bar Subsequent Challenge To Legality Of Arrest? Allahabad High Court Answers
Case title - Rakesh vs State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 526
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 526
Distinguishing the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kusum Sahu [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1110], the Allahabad High Court last week held that rejection of a regular bail application does not, by itself, bar a subsequent challenge to the legality of an arrest and judicial remand under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena clarified that the principle laid down in Kusum Sahu would not apply where the Court is concerned solely with the legality of the arrest and remand order, and not with the merits of the prosecution or the defence.
Allahabad High Court Refuses To Ban UP Cricket Association Or Order CBI Probe Into Assets Transfer
Case Title: The Cricket Association of Uttar Pradesh vs. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 527
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 527
The Allahabad High Court has refused to ban or initiate CBI inquiry against the Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association (UPCA). It has also held that no mandamus can be issued to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to take over the assets of the UPCA as the UPCA was company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Case title - Indra Pati And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 528
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 528
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that police authorities and Executive officers have no jurisdiction to adjudicate or interfere in civil disputes between private parties, while clarifying that any deviation may invite departmental as well as contempt proceedings.
In its order passed on July 27, the Court emphasized that police can intervene only to the limited extent necessary for maintaining public peace and preventing breach of law and order, as provided under the BNSS or CrPC.
Case Title: Harikesh Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 529
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 529
The Allahabad High Court has held that the period within which surcharge can be imposed on a Gram Pradhan for loss, waste or misapplication of Gram Panchayat money or property is governed by the proviso to Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and not by the shorter period prescribed in the third proviso to Rule 257(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules 1947. It held that the Rule is in conflict with the Act.
Case Title - Randhir and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 530
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 530
The Allahabad High Court has held that a trial court cannot examine a witness at the pre-cognizance stage to generate fresh evidentiary material, as such a course is "wholly" outside the scheme of Section 190 CrPC.
A Bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that a court which has not yet taken cognizance does not possess a "free-standing power" to collect additional or corroborative evidence, as that function belongs to the investigating agency, and its role at that stage is confined to applying its judicial mind to the material already on record.
Case Title - M/s Anu Enterprises through Proprietor Anu Singh vs. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow & 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 531
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 531
The Allahabad High Court has held that a contractor cannot indirectly challenge Government action taken against another entity by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary added that where the grievance essentially arises out of contractual rights flowing from Letters of Intent, the appropriate remedy lies before the arbitral tribunal or the competent civil court.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 532
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 532
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a public authority sits over a citizen's application for an indefinite period without any reasonable or plausible justification, the inaction by itself attracts the doctrine of malice in law and shows arbitrariness.
It held that an unjustified delay in permitting a citizen to carry on a lawful trade or business must answer to the “golden triangle”, i.e. Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Shivalik Small Finance Bank Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 533
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 533
The Allahabad High Court has held that although the District Magistrate must proceed to deliver possession of a secured asset once an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is made, and the function is a ministerial one, the authority is free to fix its priority according to the number of cases pending before it.
The bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran held,
“There is no doubt that the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) has to proceed for dis-possession once an application under Section 14 of the Act is made and the said Act is a ministerial act but it is always upon to the concerned authority to fix priority as per the number of cases pending before it.”
Case Title: Prof. Sanjay Mittal vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources and Development and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 534
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 534
The Allahabad High Court has held that a service rule requiring an employee to maintain courtesy in dealings with colleagues cannot be interpreted in a manner that treats every disagreement, fair criticism or discussion about institutional affairs as misconduct.
It held that a faculty member who convenes a meeting to raise concerns about a recruitment process does not thereby commit misconduct, in the absence of material showing an intention to harass, humiliate or undermine a colleague.
Case Title - Gurmel Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 535
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 535
The Allahabad High Court has termed as 'deplorable' the passing of preventive detention orders without application of mind and without reference to the "grounds of detention". It, therefore, urged the Union Government to redress the situation at the earliest in the larger interest of the criminal justice delivery system.
A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by one Gurmel Singh.
Case Title: Dr Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 536
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 536
The Allahabad High Court has held that continuation in service till the end of the academic session after superannuation is a concession and not a vested statutory right, and can be claimed only by a teacher who is actually engaged in regular teaching.
It held that an Associate Professor of an agricultural university who had been posted as In-charge of a research station could not claim the benefit merely because he continued to hold a substantive teaching post and drew his salary against it.
Case Title: Sant Ram Gautam Constable vs. State Of U.P.Thru Secy And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 537
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 537
The Allahabad High Court has held that a disciplinary authority's expression of agreement with the findings of the inquiry officer, recorded in the show cause notice, does not vitiate the punishment order that follows. It held that such agreement is a pre-condition for issuing the show cause notice at all.
It observed that the inquiry officer's recommendation of punishment is expressly contemplated by Appendix I of Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
Case Title: Rayeesh Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 538
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 538
The Allahabad High Court has held that arrears of rent due to a Nagar Palika Parishad from its tenant cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, as such rent is a contractual due and not a tax.
Section 173-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 permits a Municipality to apply to the Collector for recovery, as if it were an arrear of land revenue, of any sum due to a board on account of a tax, other than a tax payable upon immediate demand. The Collector, on being satisfied that the sum is due, proceeds to recover it in that manner.
Case Title - Dhanendra Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 539
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 539
Refusing relief to a former GST Official in a Corruption case, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday observed that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only concerned with a "strong suspicion" that the accused has committed an offence and the final test of proof of guilt is not to be applied.
"…at the stage of consideration of question of discharge of the accused/ revisionist a roving inquiry into material collected during investigation is not called for by the court. Charge can be validly framed against the accused on the basis of grave suspicion raised against him on the basis of material available on record as produced by prosecution", a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed.
Case Title: State of U.P. and 3 Ors. vs. Raj Narain Yadav Constable 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 540
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 540
The Allahabad High Court has held that a police officer cannot be dismissed from service under Rule 8(2)(a) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 merely because he stands convicted on a criminal charge, unless the disciplinary authority has first considered the conduct which led to that conviction.
It held that such consideration is a condition precedent to the authority acquiring jurisdiction to impose the punishment of dismissal.
Case Title - Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 541
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 541
The Allahabad High Court quashed the confiscation order of an illegally confiscated vehicle under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, as it noted that the authorities proceeded entirely on assumptions that the bovine animals were being transported outside Uttar Pradesh for slaughter.
A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain noted that neither any beef nor remains of slaughtered cattle were recovered from the vehicle and there was no material whatsoever to show that the animals were being transported to Bihar or to any slaughterhouse.
Case Title - Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 542
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 542
The Allahabad High Court recently imposed costs of ₹6.70 lakh on a party-in-person after finding that he had misused the Right to Information Act, 2005, by repeatedly filing vague RTI applications concerning the Court's internal functioning and also disturbed the judicial proceedings.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery dismissed the writ petition challenging an order of the State Information Commission (SIC) and directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount with the High Court Legal Service Committee within 4 weeks.
Case Title - Rakesh Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543
The Allahabad High Court has held that no police officer, irrespective of rank, can direct further investigation in a criminal case during the pendency of trial without first obtaining the permission of the court trying the case.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena noted that this was a settled position of the law under Section 173(8) CrPC, however, now it has been expressly incorporated under Section 193(9) BNSS that prior permission of the Court would be required for the police to conduct a further investigation.
Case - Ankur Tandon vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 544
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 544
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a husband who had been convicted of subjecting his wife to cruelty, abetting her suicide and offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, observing that when the trial court itself found that the husband had no contact or communication with his wife for more than 5 months before she died by suicide, it could not be said that he had abetted the commission of suicide.
Allowing the Husband's criminal appeal, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also observed that under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Penalty for giving or taking dowry), not only taking dowry, but also giving dowry is a punishable offence.
Case title - XXX vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 545
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 545
Expressing serious concerns over the declining standards of legal education in the Law Colleges, the Allahabad High Court recently directed that a redacted copy of a law student's evaluated answer book, in which he was awarded zero marks, along with the question paper, be sent to the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Law Commission of India.
The Court asked the BCI to consider whether the standards of legal education presently maintained and the existing mechanism for approval, affiliation and periodic inspection of law institutions require strengthening "to compete with globally competitive legal education standards".
Case Title: Hasan Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 546
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 546
The Allahabad High Court has held that the right of consideration for regularization does not come to an end with the death of the employee and survives through his legal representatives, where the regularization exercise had been set in motion in his lifetime.
It held that such consideration must be undertaken, if necessary notionally, so that the consequential service benefits reach the legal heirs.
Case Title: M/s Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory vs. Mrs. Pratibha Gupta 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 547
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 547
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs on a builder for making the homebuyer go through multiple rounds of frivolous litigation for 13 long years.
Justice Prashant Kumar held,
“Taking note of the hardships and vulnerabilities faced by home-buyers, the Government of India had enacted the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with the object of ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the real estate sector and providing an expeditious and effective mechanism for redressal of the grievances of allottees. However, in the present case, the very object and purpose of the Act has been frustrated by the builder, through the institution of various frivolous and vexatious litigation, apparently with a view to delay and evade the discharge of its statutory obligations and liabilities arising under the Act of 2016.”
OTHER UPDATES OF THE WEEK
The Allahabad High Court has barred any kind of construction activity, whether temporary or permanent, inside Prayagraj's Company Bagh, also known as Chandra Shekhar Azad Park, without the leave of the Court.
The Court has also restricted vehicle movement and parking within the park pending consideration of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the proposed construction of a new entrance gate for the Museum in the park.
The Allahabad High Court expressed its surprise and questioned the lack of progress in the trial of 2 accused arrested in 2021 in an alleged PFI terror plot case.
The High Court sought a comprehensive report from the Special Sessions Judge, NIA/ATS, Lucknow, questioning why its earlier directions to conclude the trial expeditiously and to ensure the proper conduct of the witness examination had not been complied with.
The Allahabad High Court barred an Arya Samaj Mandir in Lucknow's Aliganj area from solemnizing marriages and issuing marriage certificates until further orders, after prima facie finding that it was solemnizing marriages without verifying the age of the persons concerned and whether they were of marriageable age.
A Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani passed the interim direction while hearing a writ petition filed by a couple seeking police protection after their marriage.
The Allahabad High Court has sought a comprehensive response from the UP Government in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning the Lucknow coaching centre devastating fire tragedy that claimed 15 lives in June this year, after the State informed the Court that the proposed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on fire safety is "almost ready".
Recording the submission made by the State, a Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla granted 1 week's time for filing the counter affidavits.