LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Weekly Roundup: September 21 to September 27, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
Mohd. Aftab v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 728
Abhishek Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 729
Balkrishna Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 730
Rohit Pandey vs. Union of India Thru.Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs and 3 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 731
Farida Ansari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 732
Vikram Singh @ Vishwa Vikram Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 733
Sachin Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 734
Kamlesh Kumar (Corpus) And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 735
Lalitesh Pati Tripathi vs. Dr Vinod Kumar Bind 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 736
Wood Row School Society vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 737
Hem Chand vs. M/s Padmawati Pvt Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738
Faizan And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 739
Suneeta vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 740
Raju Gangwar vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 741
Dr. Aparupa Sen Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education Anubhag 4 Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 742
Gaurang Brijvasi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 743
Gorakhnath Dubey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 744
Km. Mona Shukla and 4 others vs. Gyanendra Katiyar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 745
Mangnoo Jha v. Punjab National Bank Through Chairman Cum Managing Director 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 746
Priyanka vs. State of U.P. and Another and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 747
Shahrukh vs State of UP and connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 748
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 749
M/S Yuvaan Infotech Thru. Partner Ritvik Pandey v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 750
Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Through Special Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sece 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 751
Ashok Kumar And Others vs. Union Of India Thru. General Manager North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 752
Rahul @ Dharamdev vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 753
Satya Prakash vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 754
Naresh Singh vs. The State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 755
Shubham Mishra vs. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, New Delhi And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 756
Mohammad Jalaluddin vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 757
Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 758
Balveer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 759
Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 760
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Mohd. Aftab v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 728
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 728
The Allahabad High Court has held that a passport does not guarantee spontaneous passage across border for a person who has criminal cases pending against him. It held that while the grant of passport cannot be denied merely due to pendency of criminal case, the police can apply to court for surrender of passport to prevent the person from leaving the country.
The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,
“The mere grant of a passport does not arm the holder with a spontaneous passage across borders. It requires applications for visas from the host country and also immigration procedures. In the event of the holder of the passport is endeavoring to travel abroad, it is always open to the Police or the other prosecuting agency involved to move the Court for the purpose of requiring the holder of the passport to surrender his passport so as to prevent him from leaving Indian shores.”
Case Title: Abhishek Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 729
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 729
The Allahabad High Court has held that a complaint against a Class-I officer of the State which is not backed by an affidavit, as required by the Government Orders governing complaints against Group-A officers, cannot be made the basis of a vigilance inquiry, particularly when the matter has not been placed before the State Vigilance Committee for approval.
It quashed the vigilance enquiry against an IAS officer on a complaint the complainant later admitted was made under a wrong impression.
Case Title: Balkrishna Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 730
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 730
The Allahabad High Court has held that the right to retirement benefits flows from the length of service rendered by an employee and is not linked to the post held.
It directed the State to pay pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to a Junior Clerk whose services were terminated in 2000 on the ground that there was no vacant post against which he could have been appointed, noting that he had served for almost 30 years.
Case Title - Rohit Pandey vs. Union of India Thru.Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs and 3 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 731
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 731
The Allahabad High Court has observed that merely producing a marriage certificate issued by an Arya Samaj Mandir cannot establish that a valid marriage was solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court said that the essential ceremonies prescribed for a Hindu marriage must be performed.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Singh observed thus while quashing the removal of an officer of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) who had been removed from service on the ground that he had made a false declaration about his marital status.
Case Title - Farida Ansari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 732
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 732
The Allahabad High Court has observed that an interfaith same-sex couple has a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to live together in a peaceful live-in relationship, observing that family members, relatives, or other persons cannot interfere with the couple's choice to live together.
A bench of Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary passed the order while dealing with a writ petition filed by a lesbian couple, who sought protection from alleged threats and harassment by private respondents.
Case Title - Vikram Singh @ Vishwa Vikram Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 733
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 733
The Allahabad High Court has cautioned against compelling employees to wear Santa Claus red caps in the workplace, observing that such compulsion may hurt the sentiments of people of different faiths and beliefs.
"…this type of action is not permitted in the democratic system of the country wherein every citizen is free to follow his/her faith and belief", a bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed.
Case Title: Sachin Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 734
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 734
The Allahabad High Court has held that when a cooperative society is divided under Section 126 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the original society also becomes a new body corporate, even if it is allowed to keep its old name and registration number.
It held that upon such division, the delegates of the original society cease to be delegates under Rule 87(ix) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 and cannot continue as members of the Committee of Management of the District Cooperative Bank under Rule 453(1)(h).
Case Title - Kamlesh Kumar (Corpus) And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 735
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 735
The Allahabad High Court ordered the State Government to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to a man who was kept in illegal police detention for 5 days, from August 15-August 19, 2026, before being produced before the concerned Magistrate.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order on a habeas corpus petition filed by Kamlesh Kumar, who alleged that he was unlawfully picked up by 2 armed policemen from his medical shop on August 15.
Case Title: Lalitesh Pati Tripathi vs. Dr Vinod Kumar Bind 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 736
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 736
The Allahabad High Court has held that a legislator who voluntarily gives up membership of his political party incurs disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution is only in respect of the House of which he is then a member, and is not thereby barred from contesting an election to Parliament.
It held that Article 102(2) of the Constitution disqualifies such a person only from being a member, and not from being chosen as one.
Case Title: Wood Row School Society vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 737
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 737
The Allahabad High Court has held that sale of surplus land which has been declared void under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 cannot be revived by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
Section 10(4) of the Act deems any transfer of excess vacant land made during this period to be null and void. Noting that the Repeal Act is silent on such transfers, the Court applied Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, under which a repeal does not affect the previous operation of the repealed enactment.
Case Title - Hem Chand vs. M/s Padmawati Pvt Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738
The Allahabad High Court has held that a tenant's plea that possession was never handed over under an executed rent deed, and that no landlord-tenant relationship therefore came into existence, raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,
“The plea of non-delivery of possession raised by the petitioner falls in the latter category. If established, the plea may have a bearing upon the respondent's entitlement to succeed in the rent proceedings. Its determination, however, would necessarily involve an examination of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the rent deed, the conduct of the parties and such other material as may properly be brought on record. The possibility that the defence may ultimately succeed cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. when the respondent's case, as pleaded, discloses the factual basis of the relief claimed.”
Case Title - Faizan And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 739
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 739
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two persons who were booked after allegedly visiting the Nizamuddin Markaz in Delhi during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Court observed that they were "falsely implicated" on the basis of "presumption and assumption".
Case Title - Suneeta vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 740
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 740
The Allahabad High Court has held that a divorced woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her former husband even where the divorce was granted on the ground of her desertion, provided she has not remarried and is unable to maintain herself.
A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made the observation while allowing a criminal revision filed by a woman whose maintenance claim had been rejected by the Family Court, Sultanpur.
Case Title - Raju Gangwar vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 741
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 741
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the online application form for police recruitment only required a candidate to declare that he had never been convicted, his failure to disclose a pending criminal case cannot by itself be treated as a false declaration or deliberate suppression.
It held that cancellation of candidature on such ground must reflect consideration of the factors laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and an order merely reciting the criminal case is arbitrary.
Case Title - Dr. Aparupa Sen Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education Anubhag 4 Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 742
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 742
The Allahabad High Court has held that a doctor who pursues postgraduate medical education at a government institution at subsidized rates cannot escape a compulsory government service bond merely because of administrative delays in offering a posting after completing the education.
At the same time, the Court held that a doctor cannot be denied the opportunity to participate in the mandatory counselling process for allocation of government service
Allahabad High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer Facing FIR Over Allegedly Fake Law Degree
Case Title - Gaurang Brijvasi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 743
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 743
The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a lawyer facing an FIR over an allegedly fake law degree. The Court observed that the mere fact that the degree was returned 'unverified' from the University was not sufficient, at the prima facie stage, to establish that the document was forged.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla passed the order while hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by one Gaurang Brijvasi in connection with an FIR registered under BNS for the offences of Cheating and Forgery.
Case Title: Gorakhnath Dubey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 744
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 744
The Allahabad High Court has held that the guidelines laid down by its bench in Rishi Pal Singh v. State of U.P. for proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are not mandatory unless adopted by the State, and an eviction order cannot be assailed merely because they were not followed.
Relying on the Coordinate Bench decision in Shahban v. State of U.P., the Court held that such proceedings are to be decided as per the procedure under the Code and the Rules framed thereunder.
Case Title - Km. Mona Shukla and 4 others vs. Gyanendra Katiyar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 745
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 745
The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere fact that evidence has been closed and the suit has reached the stage of final arguments does not by itself bar a court from granting leave under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to bring additional documents on record.
It held that such a late request calls for closer scrutiny, but the court must also examine whether the delay was bona fide, whether the document is relevant and whether any prejudice to the other side can be cured by safeguards.
Case Title: Mangnoo Jha v. Punjab National Bank Through Chairman Cum Managing Director
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 746
The Allahabad High Court has held that in a departmental enquiry, the burden is on the management to first establish the charges and the foundational facts on which they rest, and the delinquent employee cannot be required to disprove allegations that have not been proved against him.
The Court set aside the dismissal of a Punjab National Bank officer whose charges were premised on his having worked as System Administrator, a fact which the Bank had failed to prove even before a civil court.
Case Title - Priyanka vs. State of U.P. and Another and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 747
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 747
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a mother who was sentenced to death for killing her three children while stating that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court found that the testimony of the 8-year-old surviving child witness suffered from "irreconcilable contradictions" and exhibited "clear hallmarks of tutoring".
Case title - Shahrukh vs State of UP and connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 748
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 748
The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a woman and her alleged paramour in a murder case involving her husband, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence connecting them with the crime.
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside the judgment of the trial court, which had convicted Hasnera alias Shabana and Shahrukh for the murder of Hasnera's husband, Naeem, and sentenced both to life imprisonment.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 749
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) today permitted 'The Wire' editor Siddharth Varadarajan to travel to New York, USA, in connection with his scheduled programme.
Varadarajan remains on anticipatory bail in criminal cases arising from a 2020 report and tweets concerning Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
Case Title: M/S Yuvaan Infotech Thru. Partner Ritvik Pandey v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 750
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 750
The Allahabad High Court has held that a tendering authority cannot cancel a tender at an advanced stage merely because it had wrongly fixed the Performance Bank Guarantee (ePBG) in the bid document. It held that the ePBG is a performance security with no bearing on a bidder's eligibility or ranking, and an error in it can be corrected without re-tendering.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held,
“Correcting the percentage upward, at the tendering authority's own admitted error, and at the volunteered instance of the petitioner, does not touch the essential fabric of the selection process. It is, in essence, curing an error of the author of the tender document, not amending a term that shaped the competitive field.”
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Through Special Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sece 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 751
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 751
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a person is selected through an advertisement for a regular vacancy against a sanctioned post under the applicable service rules, the employer cannot later treat him as a contractual employee merely by describing his engagement as ad hoc or contractual in successive orders. It held that an employee who accepts consolidated remuneration out of economic necessity does not thereby give up his statutory right to the prescribed pay scale.
Case Title - Ashok Kumar And Others vs. Union Of India Thru. General Manager North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 752
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 752
The Allahabad High Court has ordered payment of a separate ₹8 lakh compensation for the loss of an unborn child after a pregnant woman died in a railway accident. The bench reiterated that an unborn child of more than five months in the womb is to be treated as a child in existence for the purpose of compensation.
The Court started that the death of the 7-month-old foetus was an independent loss apart from the death of the mother and consequently directed the Railways to pay an additional ₹8 lakh under the applicable compensation rules.
Case title - Rahul @ Dharamdev vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 753
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 753
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to conduct an independent and discreet inquiry into the circumstances in which a vehicle seized in an excise case was taken out of police custody for a police raid and subsequently involved in a fatal accident.
The Court observed that the circumstances surrounding the removal and use of the seized vehicle raised "serious questions", particularly as the vehicle was later involved in an accident in which a woman died.
Case title - Satya Prakash vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 754
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 754
The Allahabad High Court has observed that experience acquired while working in Punjab National Bank (PNB) cannot be counted as experience in a "government office" for the purpose of the specific eligibility condition prescribed in an advertisement for the post of Registrar, Higher Education Department, Government of UP.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak was hearing a writ petition filed by Satya Prakash, whose candidature for the post of Registrar (Higher Education) had been rejected on the ground that his experience did not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria.
Case title - Naresh Singh vs. The State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 755
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 755
The Allahabad High Court has held that a police officer cannot be held 'negligent' merely for failing to act when there was no information or intelligence requiring him to take action.
"The Police do act on information. Absence of information leading to omission to act cannot be termed as negligence", a bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh said.
The Court thus set aside a punishment of censure imposed on a police officer who had been held responsible for failing to prevent the subsequent collection of explosives that later caused a fatal explosion.
Case Title: Shubham Mishra vs. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, New Delhi And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 756
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 756
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Medical Assessment Board constituted under the National Medical Commission's guidelines for admission of persons with benchmark disabilities to the MBBS course cannot re-determine the percentage of disability already certified under Section 57 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
It held that the Board's mandate is confined to assessing the functional competency of the candidate to pursue the course, and re-quantifying disability is an excess of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Mohammad Jalaluddin vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 757
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 757
The Allahabad High Court has held that the owner of a vehicle who was himself travelling in it when beef was recovered cannot resist confiscation under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 by pleading that the meat belonged to passengers who had hired the vehicle.
It held that once the seized meat is confirmed to be beef by an authorised laboratory, the presumption under Section 5-A(10) of the Act is attracted against him, and it is for him to displace it by cogent evidence.
Case Title: Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 758
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 758
The Allahabad High Court has held that disputed examination questions and answer options cannot be referred to an expert unless there are facts before the Court warranting such a reference.
Dismissing the writ petition of a NEET-UG 2026 candidate, it held that an objection to the answer keys raised by one candidate, examined and rejected by the National Testing Agency and echoed by no other, did not call for interference.
Case Title: Balveer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 759
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 759
The Allahabad High Court has held that a senior citizen who alleges that a gift deed of his property is a forgery cannot have it declared void by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
It held that Section 23(1) of the Act presupposes a valid transfer made on the condition that the transferee will provide the senior citizen basic amenities and basic physical needs, and is attracted only where that condition is broken. It held that a plea that the deed was never executed at all lies before the civil court.
Case Title - Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 760
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 760
The Allahabad High Court has protected the peaceful marital life of a divorced couple with two children who subsequently remarried each other. The Court, however, remarked that the "pious institution of marriage should not be taken lightly".
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by the couple seeking protection of their peaceful marital life and assistance in registering their marriage.
OTHER UPDATES OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Sachin Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Education And 3 Others
The Allahabad High Court has stayed a Uttar Pradesh government order reserving 62 of the 85 MBBS seats in each of four government medical colleges for Scheduled Caste candidates, holding that it defied the Court's earlier directions and the State's own undertaking to follow the U.P. Admission to Educational Institutions (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006.
Case title - Vallabhi Yadav And Another vs. Nirdeshak/Prabhandhak Leverage Edu And 5 Others
The Allahabad High Court has flagged the practice of online service providers contacting people who have searched for certain content online and obtaining their consent through OTPs or web links, observing that such activities are in the public domain and affect the public at large.
A Bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran made the observation while hearing a writ petition concerning an overseas education aspirant who alleged that a loan obtained for her proposed studies abroad was not canceled despite her request, ultimately affecting her father's CIBIL score.
Case title - X And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
The Allahabad High Court has ordered an independent inquiry against the Head of the Department of Law and Warden of the Boys' Hostel at Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University, Prayagraj, over allegations of caste-based humiliation and discrimination raised by 2 students.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar also directed an independent re-evaluation of the answer sheets of one of the students and barred the concerned HOD-Warden from having any role in his evaluation, disciplinary matters or hostel-related matters concerning the petitioners.
The Allahabad High Court has appointed Advocate Commissioners for inspection and verification of factual position of Gulmohar Greens, Ghaziabad, where possession of flats was handed over by the builder without obtaining completion certificate from the Ghaziabad Development Authority.
The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan appointed advocates Sri Sanjay Kumar Om and Sri Prakhar Kumar Srivastava as Advocate Commissioners to visit the site and provide the correct factual position regarding position of the project and the possession of flats by the flatowners.
Case title - In Re: Conduct of Elections to the Oudh Bar Association
The Allahabad High Court has directed candidates contesting the 2026-27 elections of the Oudh Bar Association not to paste posters or stickers, take out processions or distribute food items within the High Court premises in connection with the elections.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla also prohibited candidates from distributing handbills and pamphlets to members of the Bar inside the High Court compound and within a 100-metre radius outside the Court premises.
The Allahabad High Court has ordered an inquiry into the circumstances in which a C-section was performed on a 13-year-old rape survivor after the Court had directed termination of her pregnancy. The Court observed that the doctors involved were prima facie guilty of "deliberate negligence" for failing to comply with its order.
The Court said it was a fit case for appropriate proceedings against the doctors for having "played with the life of a rape victim" whose application before the Court was for medical termination of pregnancy.
Case title - Priti Singh vs. Union of India and others
The Allahabad High Court has directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to refund ₹17,29,999 deducted from a widow's bank account towards the outstanding personal loan of her deceased husband, holding prima facie that the bank could not recover its dues from the life insurance proceeds received by her.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a writ petition filed by the widow, who challenged the deduction made from her savings bank account maintained with SBI's Colonelganj Branch, Prayagraj.
Case title - Suresh Yadav And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
The Allahabad High Court last week questioned a trial court's order granting anticipatory bail to 3 accused persons for a limited period of only 30 days, without disclosing any specific reason for restricting the protection to such a short period.
The Court has called for a proper explanation from the concerned Presiding Officer.
A bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh was hearing an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by Suresh Yadav and two others, challenging the December 23, 2025 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Azamgarh.
The Allahabad High Court has directed the District Judge, Sultanpur, to conduct an inquiry to identify the advocates allegedly involved in looting ballot boxes during the counting of the Sultanpur Bar Association election, an act that disrupted the election process.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla directed the District Judge to examine the CCTV footage, along with other available evidence, and identify the persons or advocates who may have indulged in the incident.
The Allahabad High Court expressed concerns over repeated adjournments being sought in criminal appeals on the ground that counsel have not received the paper book.
The Court said that the practice is resulting in a "gross wastage of judicial time" and forcing the Court to function "more as glorified clerks" than Judges entrusted with adjudication.
Case title - In Re Nine Dead As Bus Erupts In Flames On Yamuna E-Way
The Allahabad High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the death of 9 passengers after a sleeper bus caught fire on the Yamuna Expressway in the Noida/Greater Noida area and sought detailed information from the Uttar Pradesh Government regarding permits, safety standards and inspections of sleeper buses operating in the State.
A Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery directed the concerned authorities to provide, among other things, details of sleeper-bus permits issued during the last 2 years, the standards checked before granting such permits, inspections carried out in UP and criminal action taken in similar accidents.
Case title - Shivendu Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 11 Others
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to formulate a policy prescribing parameters for granting compensation in cases not covered by statutory provisions, after the State informed the Court that its existing compensation policy was confined only to natural calamities.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the direction while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning a devastating fire incident at a three-story building housing an Animation Center in Lucknow in June 2026 in which 15 young persons died, while several others suffered injuries or disability.