Uttarakhand High Court Annual Digest 2025

Uttarakhand High Court Upholds GO Directing Private Residential Schools To Only Charge Tuition Fees During COVID-19 Lockdown

Case Title: Welham Boys' School Society & others Versus State of Uttarakhand & another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (UTT) 1

Reiterating that commercialization and profiteering in education are impermissible, the Uttarakhand High Court upheld the State Government's 2021 orders regulating fees of private unaided residential schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, directing the institutions to charge only tuition fees.

“In view of the emergent situation, which had arisen due to Covid-19 Pandemic and the lockdown-imposed consequent thereto, State Government was justified in issuing necessary directions to the private unaided residential schools not to charge fee for services, which were not availed of by the students during the period when the school/ hostel were closed and classes were conducted online,”, the division bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit said.

S.43D(2)(b) UAPA | Slow Progress In Initial 90 Days Bars Extension Of Investigation Period, Accused Entitled To Default Bail: Uttarakhand HC

Case Title: Javed Siddiqui and another Versus State of Uttarakhand and another, Criminal Appeal No. 495 of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (2) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court granted default bail to two UAPA accused, for their alleged involvement in the violence and resistance during a demolition drive in Banbhoolpura, Nainital.

The Court noted that failure of the investigative agency to record substantial progress in the initial 90 days of investigation (in a UAPA case) wouldn't entitle the investigating agency to seek an extension of accused custody beyond 90 days, and the accused would be entitled to seek a default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

“The right to life and liberty is one of the integral parts of the Constitution of India and it is the most sacred Fundamental Right. The custody of people in the name of various enactments and without adhering to the promptness of the investigation, it (the enactments) cannot allow the appellants to remain under incarceration.”, the court said.

'Admitted Student Can't Be Asked To Pay Revised Fees During Ongoing Course', Uttarakhand HC Quashes Retrospective Fee Hike In Ayurveda Colleges

Case Title: Bindiya Khatri and others. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (3) UTT

Providing relief to students of B.A.M.S. courses from various Ayurvedic colleges of the State, the Uttarakhand High Court quashed the decision to extend the revised increased tuition fees in the year 2019 to the admission took place in the preceding years.

Also, the Court said that the student is liable to pay the fees prevalent at the time of admission, and the fees cannot be revised unless the student completes the course.

Concept Of Appointing Named Arbitrator Who Is An Interested Party Is No Longer Sustainable: Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: M/s SPDD VDPPL JV and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (4) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar has held that the concept of appointing a named Arbitrator, who himself is an interested party, is no longer sustainable.

Uttarakhand HC Permits US-Based Wife To Record Evidence Via Video Conferencing In Matrimonial Dispute, Stresses Effective Use Of VC Rules

Case title - Madhuri Joshi vs. Shashank Balooni

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (5) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court allowed a wife residing in the United States of America to record her evidence in a matrimonial dispute (in a case pending in a family court in the State's Dehradun district) via videoconferencing.

A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma also directed all the courts within the State to ensure the effective use of High Court Video Conferencing Rules 2020 as and when necessary.

Orders Under Omitted Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rule, 2017 Post 8th Oct, 2024 Not Valid; No Savings Clause: Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: M/s Sri Sai Vishwas Polymers v. Union of India and Another

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (6) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court stated that orders passed under omitted Rule 96(10) Of CGST Rule, 2017 post 8th Oct, 2024 is not valid.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra stated that there was no scope for the department to pass any order by invoking the provisions of rule 96(10) of CGST Rule, 2017 after the same was omitted on 8th October, 2024 without a saving clause in favour of the pending proceeding.

Uttarakhand High Court Expunges 'Adverse' Remarks In Transfer Order Concerning Son Of Nainital Rape Accused

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (7) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court expunged the 'adverse' remarks made in the order transferring Rizwan Khan, an additional assistant engineer in PWD Uttarakhand, who happens to be son of Nainital rape accused.

A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Ashish Naithani passed this order while hearing Khan's plea against an order passed by the Engineer-in-Chief and Head of Department, PWD, Uttarakhand, transferring him from the Construction Division, PWD, Khatima, to Temporary Division, PWD, Ghansali, on 'administrative' grounds.

'No Allegation How Ads Were False & Misleading' : HC Quashes Uttarakhand Govt's Complaint Against Patanjali Ayurved

Case : M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd v State of Uttarakhand

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (8) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court quashed a criminal case against Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and its founders, Baba Ramdev and Acharya Balkrishna, over alleged publication of misleading medical advertisements.

The complaint was filed in 2024 by the Uttarakhand Senior Food Security Officer for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of the Drugs and Magical Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The complaint referred to letters received from the Ayush Ministry in 2022, which stated that the medicines Madhugrit, Madhunashini, Divya Lipidom Tablet, Divya Livogrit Tablet, Divya Livamrit Advance Tablet, Divya Madhunashini Vati, and Divya Madhugrit Tablet were promoted by misleading advertisements.

'Alarming; Accused Said He Will Reoffend': Uttarakhand HC Denies Bail In FIR Over 'Indecent' Post On Lord Rama, Sita

Case title – Riyaz vs State of Uttarakhand

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (9) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court refused to grant bail to one Riyaz, accused of posting indecent comments on Instagram targeting Lord Rama and Goddess Sita, after taking note of allegations in the FIR that the accused not only admitted to making the objectionable comment but also expressed intent to repeat such conduct in the future.

A bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, while rejecting the bail plea, observed that the nature of the allegations, as reflected on the face of the FIR, was 'very serious'.

'Fair Trial Denied; Docs Not Provided In Braille Script': Uttarakhand HC Orders Retrial Of Blind Rape Accused Who Got 20-Yr Jail Term

Case title - Suchit Narang vs State Of Uttarakhand

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (10) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court set aside the conviction and 20-year jail term awarded to a visually impaired music teacher for allegedly raping minor school students as it noted that the accused was denied a fair trial since case documents were not provided to him in Braille script.

“The failure and omission to furnish the documents in Braille script, which is admittedly the language which the accused is capable of reading, in our considered opinion has vitiated and rendered the trial unfair on account of the inability of the accused to read, comprehend and instruct his counsel,” a bench of Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra observed in its order.

'Only Wilful Disobedience Amounts To Contempt': Uttarakhand HC Closes Case Against IIM Kashipur Interim Chairman, CAO

Case title - Vinay Sharma vs. Ajay Kumar Upadhyay and connected petition

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (11) UTT

Closing contempt proceedings against IIM Kashipur's Interim Chairperson and Chief Administrative Officer, the Uttarakhand High Court observed that every disobedience is not contempt, and to bring a breach of the Court's order within the realm of contempt, it should be a 'wilful' disobedience.

A bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani added that it should be an informed choice of the contemnor not to obey the Court's order, and if it is so, only then would the provision of contempt be attracted.

Uttarakhand High Court Stays Vaccinologist's Conviction In Abetment Of Suicide Case Citing 'Greater Issue Of Public Health'

Case Title: Akash Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (12) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court suspended/stayed the order of conviction as well as execution of sentence against a Vaccine Scientist held guilty by the trial Court for abatement of suicide of his wife.

While accepting the argument that stay of conviction is in the interest of larger public health, the Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani observed –

“What is stated in the instant case is that the appellant is a Scientist, who is into the research work of vaccine development, and due to his conviction, he is not allowed to join his duties, which, otherwise, is also greater issue of public health and national interest.”

Satisfied With State's Preparations: Uttarakhand HC Disposes PILs To Postpone Panchayat Polls Over Kanwar Yatra, Bad Weather

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (13) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking postponement of panchayat elections on account of the ongoing Kanwar Yatra after recording satisfaction with the arrangements made by the Panchayati Raj Department and the Police Department.

Similarly, the Court disposed of another plea too in similar terms, which had expressed apprehensions over holding Panchayat Polls amidst severe weather conditions in the state.

Panchayat Polls | Fake Or Genuine Votes? Uttarakhand High Court Says Such Disputes Can Only Be Decided In Election Petition

Case title - Rajendra Singh Chauhan vs. State Election Commission and Others

Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (14) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court observed that the allegations regarding fake voting in panchayat elections raise a question of fact and can be decided only in an election petition.

Thus, adopting a 'hands-off approach', a Bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani refused to entertain a writ plea seeking to quash votes cast in a particular polling booth and an independent inquiry against the erring officials involved in the 'corrupt' practice of getting 'fake' votes.

'Executive Cannot Impose Restriction On Number Of Times An Ex-Serviceman Can Avail Reservation Benefits': Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: Dinesh Chandra Kandpal v. State of Uttarakhand & another

Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (15) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court has struck down Clause 8 of a 2020 Government Order that effectively denied ex-servicemen (Purva Sainik) the right to claim reservation benefits by mandating that the benefit of ex-servicemen status would be available only once, and if an ex-serviceman gets civil employment due to his ex-servicemen status, then he shall not be entitled to such benefit again.

The Court referred to Section 2(1)(c) of Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation For Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and (Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (“the 1993 Act”) which defines 'Purva Sainik' as (i) a domicile of Uttarakhand, who served in Indian Army, Navy or Air Force and who retired from such service, after earning pension; or (ii) released from service on medical grounds or who was released under circumstances beyond his control and was given medical or other eligibility pension; or (iii) who was released from service for reasons other than his own request; or (iv) who was released from service after completing a specific period for reasons other than termination or removal from service and who was paid gratuity.

Does S. 482 BNSS Override State's Anticipatory Bail Restrictions U/S 438 CrPC? Uttarakhand High Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench

Case title - Harish Kumar Prajapati vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Branch, Dehradun and connected matters

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (16) UTT

In a significant order, the Uttarakhand High Court referred to a larger Bench the question as to whether the provisions of Section 482 BNSS would prevail over the State amendment to Section 438 CrPC, which contains restrictions on grant of relief in serious offences, particularly in light of the more liberal approach adopted in the BNSS with respect to anticipatory bail.

A bench of Justice Alok Kumar Verma framed the following issue while hearing a batch of anticipatory bail pleas filed u/s 482 BNSS by certain accused apprehending arrest in connection with cases registered both under the IPC, POCSO Act, NDPS Act, etc:

"Whether the provision of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 would prevail over the Uttarakhand State Amendment under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and since the provisions of the Sanhita, 2023 are beneficial to the accused, can it be applied with respect to earlier cases (regardless of when the case of the accused originated)?"

'Elections Are Lifeline Of Democracy, Must Be Free, Fair & Transparent; Each Vote Matters': Uttarakhand High Court

Case title - Pushpa Negi vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (17) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court observed that elections are the lifeline of democracy, and since each vote matters, polls must be conducted in a free, fair, and transparent manner.

A bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani made the observation while hearing a writ petition filed by Pushpa Negi, who sought directions to ensure that the upcoming election of the Chairman of Zila Panchayat, Nainital, is conducted transparently.

Reversion From Higher Post After 4 Years Of Service, Without Following Procedure Is Major Penalty : Uttarakhand HC

Case Name : Birendra Singh Nabiyal and others vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (18) UTT

A Division bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra held that reversion to a lower post constitutes a major penalty under the Uttarakhand Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, and cannot be imposed without following the prescribed procedure as mandated by Rule 7.

Uttarakhand High Court Asks 'Maktabs' Illegally Using Name 'Madarsa' To File Affidavit Desisting From Such Practice

Case Title: Madarsa Inamul Ulum Society v. State of Uttarakhand & Others

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (19) UTT

While asking the authorities to de-seal the 'Maktabs' illegally functioning as 'Madarsa', the Uttarakhand High Court has ordered such Maktabs to file affidavits before the respective Sub Divisional Magistrates (SDMs) to desist from running Madarsa and refrain from using the expression 'Madarsa' in the name of their institutions.

A Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed against alleged unlawful sealing of Maktabs without any order from statutory authorities. They argued that such restrictions put upon their functioning is derogatory to the constitutional right granted to Maktabs, where students learn Quran recitation, grammar and ethics.

Chairman/Member Of Cooperative Tribunal Entitled To Revised Pension After Deduction Of Parent Service Benefits: Uttarakhand HC

Case Name : Tarkendra Vaishnav and another vs State of Uttarakhand and another

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (20) UTT

A Division bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprising Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Alok Mahra held that a person retiring as Chairman or Member of the Uttarakhand Cooperative Tribunal is entitled to recalculation of pension, gratuity, and other post-retiral benefits by including the service rendered in the Tribunal, after deducting benefits already received from the parent service i.e. IAS officer and Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies respectively.

Uttarakhand High Court Suspends POCSO Conviction & Grants Bail To Man After Alleged Victim Pleads For His Release

Case Title: Rampal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (21) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court has suspended the order of conviction and sentence passed against a man, who was implicated for allegedly kidnapping and committing rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl, after the victim herself pleaded for suspension of his sentence and release on bail.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra also remarked that the trial Court judgment is based on “no evidence” and critically observed –

“In the absence of critical evidence relating to the place of commission of offence, or any forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime, we find the judgment of conviction more than shocking, and that too a judgment of conviction under Section 5 of the POCSO Act.”

'Conscience Shaken': Uttarakhand High Court Transfers Probe Into Missing Mahant's Case To CBI After 8 Yrs Of Inaction

Case title - Mahant Sukdev Muni vs. State of Uttarakhand & others

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (22) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court ordered the transfer of investigation into the disappearance of a priest/mahant from Haridwar, who also happenes to be the national spokesperson of the Akhara Parishad, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

A bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit expressed strong displeasure over the State police's prolonged failure to trace him even after eight years of investigation.

'Deriding Elected Govt': Uttarakhand HC Denies Relief To Man Accused Of Instigating 'Mob Lynching' Attempt Via FB Live

Case title - Madan Mohan Joshi vs. State of Uttarakhand and others

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (23) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court has refused to quash the FIR or grant protection from arrest to a person accused of instigating a mob lynching attempt under the pretext of cow protection, via Facebook Live.

A bench of Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay dismissed the writ petition file y accused (Madan Mohan Joshi) as it took serious exception to his alleged social media posts that spoke of starting a 'Kranti' (revolution) across the country.

"In other words, he is deriding popular & democratically elected governments and the same is condemnable. In that view, the petition does not merit consideration and is, accordingly, rejected", the bench remarked as it refused him the relief.

Uttarakhand High Court Quashes GST Order After Authorities Ignored Adjournment Request While Assessee Was Abroad

Case Title: Atlanta Tele Cables vs The Deputy Commissioner State Goods and Services Tax

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (24) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a Goods and Services Tax (GST) demand order passed against an assessee after the department ignored his request for adjournment on the ground that he was abroad at the relevant time.

The petitioner had approached the Court challenging an order issued under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, contending that the adjudicating authority proceeded in absence of petitioner despite being duly informed that he was outside India and unable to participate in the hearing or produce records.

Outsourced Forest Staff Cannot Be Discontinued Over Mere Classification Under 'Wrong Salary Head': Uttarakhand High Court

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (25) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court has granted relief to a slew of outsourced workmen (petitioners) of the Uttarakhand Forest Department— whose engagement was discontinued on the sole ground that there was a change in the salary head from which their wages were being drawn— directing the State Government to not discontinue the services of such workmen on such grounds.

The services of the petitioners— who were engaged through outsourcing in different divisions of Uttarakhand Forest Department (Respondent) since 2001, were discontinued vide a Government Order of 2023, only on the ground that there was a change in the salary head from which their wages were being drawn. The 2023 GO stated that the payment of the petitioners was done on wrong classification of the expenditure, which was against Point no.4 Chapter IV of the Budget Manual, and was thus a financial irregularity as per the State Government. It further stated that if any payment was made to the petitioners by the Department, the payment so made shall be recovered from the salary/pension of the concerned Drawing/Disbursing Officer.

Can't Withhold Officer's Promotion When Chargesheet Was Served After Completion Of Exercise: Uttarakhand High Court Reiterates

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (25) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court stayed an order which had put on hold the promotion of a man as a Forest Range Officer, based on a charge-sheet issued against him which was served to him after the promotion exercise.

In doing so the court reiterated that withholding of promotion of an individual on the ground that charge-sheet was issued on a date anterior to holding of promotion exercise cannot be sustained in law, particularly when the chargesheet had not been served on the employee at the time when his promotion was considered.

Income Tax Act | Multiple Presentations Of Proposal For Reopening U/S 148 After Rejection Not Permissible: Uttarakhand High Court

Case Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur v. Rajan Rajesh Kumar

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (26) UTT

The Uttarakhand High Court held that once a proposal for reopening an assessment under Section 148 is rejected by the competent authority, repeated representations of the same proposal are impermissible and without jurisdiction.

Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay examined whether the multiple presentations / repeated re-presentation of the proposal for initiation of proceedings under Section 148 to the Competent Authority under Section 151, is permissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961.