NOMINAL INDEX
Pankaj Kumar and 9 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety Drug Administration and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 877
Rajneesh Upadhyay and 14 others v. The State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 878
Leelawati Devi vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 879
P.K. Nigam v. P.N.B. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 880
Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and 4 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 881
M/S Nalini Khandelwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Industrial Development 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 882
X vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 883
Saeeda Fatima Ashraf vs. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Barabanki and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 884
P vs. P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 885
Archana Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 886
Km. Vidyawati vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 887
Aniket Gupta vs. Union of India and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 888
Girdhari Lal Yadav vs. Bar Council of U.P. & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 889
: Deepak Pal vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 890
Juvenile - X vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 891
Suresh Yadav @ Geeta Saran Yadav vs. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 892
Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 893
Suresh Chander and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others with Gulmohur Greens Residents Welfare Association vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 894
Mohd Azam Khan vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 895
Pinki Verma And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 896
Bihari Lal Rastogi vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 897
Sumit Makhija and another v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 898
State of UP and 3 others vs. Ramesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 899
Sheo Kinkar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 900
Archana Boodh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 901
Ashok Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planing Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 902
Teerathraj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 903
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title : Pankaj Kumar and 9 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety Drug Administration and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 877
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 877
The Allahabad High Court has held that the post of Junior Analyst (Food) in the State service cadre is distinct from the post of Food Analyst under Section 45 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It held that the State Government is competent to prescribe the academic qualification for it.
Holding that no question of repugnancy arose, the Court upheld Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Food Safety and Drug Administration Department Analysts (Food and Drug Laboratory) Service Rules, 2017, as amended by the First Amendment Rules, 2020, as intra vires.
Case Title : Rajneesh Upadhyay and 14 others v. The State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 878
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 878
The Allahabad High Court has held that the inability of a department to trace an approval order in its own records does not establish that the approval was never granted, much less that the employee fabricated it.
It held that where the State seeks to brand an appointment fraudulent, it must identify the false representation or the fabricated document, fix responsibility for it and establish its connection with the appointment of the particular employee.
Case Title : Leelawati Devi vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 879
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 879
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to pay ₹25,000 to a woman as compensation for 12 extra days she remained in jail because the police department failed to supply timely instructions to the state counsel in her bail matter.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the court could not decide the bail application on October 12, 2026, because the police failed to provide the necessary instructions to the Assistant Government Advocate (AGA).
Case Title : P.K. Nigam v. P.N.B. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 880
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 880
The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings are vitiated where the employer does not supply the delinquent employee copies of the documents used against him and, despite a direction of the Court, fails to produce the original inquiry record on the plea that it has been misplaced.
It held that the employer must establish from the inquiry record that a fair opportunity of defence was given, and that where the record is unavailable, that burden is not discharged.
Case Title : Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and 4 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 881
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 881
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Seasonal Collection Amin who has failed to achieve the minimum recovery of 70% prescribed under the U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 cannot claim regular appointment on the strength of seniority. It held that satisfactory work is a condition of eligibility under Rule 5 of the Rules and seniority becomes relevant only among those who are eligible.
Rule 5 of the Rules, as amended in 1992, provides that 35% of the vacancies of Collection Amin shall be filled by selection from Seasonal Collection Amins who have worked satisfactorily for at least four fasals. Work is treated as satisfactory where the recovery is at least 70% of the prescribed standard in the last four fasals, coupled with good conduct throughout.
Case Title : M/S Nalini Khandelwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Industrial Development 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 882
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 882
The Allahabad High Court has held that a statutory authority administering a public allotment scheme cannot reject an application because the applicant did not file a document which the scheme brochure never made mandatory.
It held that the principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has started is not limited to recruitment and applies equally to allotment schemes.
Case Title : X vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 883
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 883
The Allahabad High Court directed the Meerut Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) BBGTS Murthy, to remain in court until 4 PM after an accused, against whom it had issued a non-bailable warrant, was not produced before the High Court.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that although there appeared to be negligence on the part of the SSP's subordinates, the SSP himself, being the authority responsible for executing the warrant, was duty-bound to ensure the accused's presence before the High Court.
Case Title : Saeeda Fatima Ashraf vs. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Barabanki and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 884
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 884
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is not a Civil Court and that an order passed by it can be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It held that the powers and privileges of a Civil Court conferred on the Prescribed Authority by Section 37 of the Act do not make it one, as those powers can be exercised only for determining surplus land.
Case Title : P vs. P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 885
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 885
The Allahabad High Court has held that the partial freedom from the Evidence Act which Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 gives to Family Courts does not release them from the ordinary principles of proof or from the rules of natural justice. It held that custody could not be decided on an affidavit filed by the father when he never presented himself for cross-examination.
Case Title : Archana Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 886
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 886
The Allahabad High Court has held that a claim for ex gratia assistance of Rs. 50,00,000/- under the Government's COVID-19 scheme cannot be rejected merely for want of a positive RT-PCR report, where the Government hospital's own records show a positive antigen result and the authorities themselves accept the infection and the cause of death.
The scheme provides a one-time payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the dependants of personnel who died of COVID-19 while performing duties connected with its prevention, protection or treatment. A Government Order dated 26.07.2021 required a legible copy of the deceased employee's RT-PCR, antigen or CT scan report to be uploaded on the Relief Commissioner's portal.
Case Title : Km. Vidyawati vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 887
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 887
The Allahabad High Court has held that an unmarried sister is not disqualified from receiving the Rs. 5,00,000/- accidental death benefit under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojana merely because a sister is not named in the list of family members covered by the Scheme.
The Court held that the clause listing covered family members and the clause directing payment of the insured sum to the nominee or legal heir on the accidental death of the head or breadwinner operate separately. It held that the latter does not confine the legal heir to the relationships named in the family composition clause.
Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging 18% GST On Online Legal Research Database
Case Title : Aniket Gupta vs. Union of India and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 888
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 888
The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the levy of 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on online legal research and legal educational data based services.
The Court questioned as to why the advocate who filed the plea in 2026 had suddenly become aware of the alleged unreasonableness of the tax when the tax rates were in force since 2017.
Case Title : Girdhari Lal Yadav vs. Bar Council of U.P. & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 889
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 889
The Allahabad High Court has barred 300 advocates from voting in the upcoming Oudh Bar Association elections scheduled for October 28 over issues with their Certificates of Practice (COP).
The Court has also directed the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council to develop an online COP verification system within six months.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the order in 3 connected petitions, including two Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pleas filed concerning the upcoming Oudh Bar Association elections.
Case Title : Deepak Pal vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 890
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 890
The Allahabad High Court has issued strict statewide directions to prevent the registration of child marriages in Uttar Pradesh, wherein it has made the verification of the date of birth of both parties mandatory before a marriage registration certificate can be issued.
The Court directed the State Government to ensure that its online registration system does not issue certificates based solely on Aadhaar age records and does not allow applications to proceed when age is unverified or a discrepancy is flagged.
Case Title : Juvenile - X vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 891
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 891
The Allahabad High Court has held that an offence under Section 467 IPC, which does not prescribe a minimum sentence of 7 years, cannot be classified as a "heinous offence" for the purposes of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
A bench of Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari held that the offence falls within the category of "serious offences" under the JJ Act.
Case Title : Suresh Yadav @ Geeta Saran Yadav vs. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 892
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 892
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure that police verification reports submitted for passport applications disclose the current status of criminal proceedings, including whether a charge-sheet has been filed before a court and whether cognizance has been taken.
A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad observed that police officers cannot act mechanically by merely mentioning a case crime number in which a passport applicant is implicated or providing details of a charge-sheet filed against a person.
Case Title : Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 893
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 893
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a trial court can entertain a second application seeking alteration or addition of a charge under Section 216 CrPC, even after an earlier application for the same relief was rejected.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava, however, clarified that the power to entertain such plea is available only before pronouncement of judgment of the trial.
Case Title : Suresh Chander and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others with Gulmohur Greens Residents Welfare Association vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 894
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 894
The Allahabad High Court has imposed costs of ₹25 lakh on the promoter of the Gulmohar Greens housing society in Ghaziabad and directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) to pay ₹50,000 to each of the eleven apartment owners who approached the Court, holding that GDA officials had colluded with the promoter in perpetuating illegalities, including allowing flats to be sold and occupied without a completion certificate.
Case Title : Mohd Azam Khan vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 895
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 895
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday suspended the sentence of former Uttar Pradesh Cabinet Minister Mohd. Azam Khan and his son, former MLA Abdullah Azam Khan, in the alleged Dual PAN Card case. The Court also granted them bail.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal, however, refused to suspend their conviction. They are likely to walk out of jail.
Case Title : Pinki Verma And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 896
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 896
Citing a verse from the 'Manusmriti', the Allahabad High Court stressed a husband's 'pious obligation' to maintain his wife, minor children and aged parents.
A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri referred to Chapter XI, Verse 10 of the Manusmriti while dealing with a criminal revision filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded by a Family Court in Kanpur Nagar.
Case Title : Bihari Lal Rastogi vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 897
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 897
The Allahabad High Court has held that the settled principle that inclusion in a select list confers no indefeasible right to appointment cannot be used to reject the claim of a selected candidate who relies on vacancies alleged to be available and on an earlier direction of the Court requiring his case to be reconsidered.
It held that the recruiting authority was obliged to ascertain the actual vacancy position, apply the recruitment provisions governing the selection and give legally sustainable reasons for its decision.
Case Title : Sumit Makhija and another v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 898
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 898
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on two petitioners who obtained the release of land acquired in 1959 by concealing material facts.
The Court held that they had suppressed the fact that their predecessors had purchased the land after the acquisition had commenced, and had not disclosed the civil suit, first appeal and second appeal in which the acquisition was unsuccessfully challenged.
Case Title : State of UP and 3 others vs. Ramesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 899
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 899
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ court may grant relief at the interim stage which amounts to the final relief, where the legal position has already been settled by the Supreme Court and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner would not ultimately succeed.
Dismissing two State appeals against interim orders directing payment of the minimum pay scale to daily wagers of the Forest Department, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000.
Case Title : Sheo Kinkar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 900
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 900
The Allahabad High Court issued significant directions prescribing certain uniform formatting requirements for pleadings filed before it.
The Court has mandated that English pleadings must be typed in Times New Roman font, size 14, with double line spacing and Hindi pleadings must use a Unicode font, size 14, with the same line spacing.
Case Title : Archana Boodh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 901
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 901
The Allahabad High Court has held that the continued engagement of teachers in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas on year-to-year contracts, without any step by the State to create posts for them or to pay them at par with regularly appointed teachers, amounts to a form of forced labour prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
The Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Scheme was launched in 2004 under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to provide residential schooling to girls from socially, educationally and economically backward sections living in rural and remote areas, and was later merged into Samagra Shiksha. Teaching staff were first engaged through a selection process held under an advertisement dated 10.07.2009, and have since been appointed on contract from year to year on an honorarium.
Case Title : Ashok Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planing Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 902
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 902
The Allahabad High Court has held that where a writ petition turns on disputed or unverified facts going to the eligibility of a third party, the Court must ordinarily call for a counter-affidavit before recording a finding of fact against a party who has had no opportunity to place his version on record.
Setting aside a Single Judge's order to that extent, it held that the eligibility of the officer granted officiating charge of the post of Chief Town and Country Planner could not be decided on a statement from the Bar, unsupported by any affidavit or certificate.
Case Title : Teerathraj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 903
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 903
The Allahabad High Court has held that to attract Section 326A IPC, which punishes voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc., a burn injury must have a lasting impact on the affected body part.
The Court clarified that a 'simple' burn which heals within 13 days without leaving any visible marks or functional impairment, is not what is envisaged by the expression 'burn' as used in the said section, which contemplates a lasting impact on the affected body part and must be severe enough to alter or gravely affect it for a significant period.
UPDATES OF THE WEEK
The Allahabad High Court Bar Association threatened to boycott the court of Justice Ajay Bhanot, alleging that he humiliated an advocate during court proceedings and also mocked a senior Advocate.
In a letter dated October 27, 2026, addressed to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court through the Registrar General, the newly elected office-bearers of the Bar Association sought appropriate action over an incident stated to have occurred in Justice Bhanot's Court on the same day.
Case Title : Pawan Kumar And 137 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko.And 3 Others
The Allahabad High Court has sought an explanation from the Uttar Pradesh State Election Commission authorities over the omission of 138 Amethi residents' names from the final voter list, despite their inclusion in the draft electoral roll and without notice to the persons concerned.
A bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh sought the response while hearing a writ petition filed by the 138 affected residents of Gopalpur village, Gram Panchayat Mahmoodpur Benipur, Block Amethi, Tehsil Amethi, in Amethi district.
The Allahabad High Court has directed the identification of advocates who allegedly raised slogans and disrupted court proceedings in the corridors during a protest over the October 27 courtroom incident involving Justice Ajay Bhanot.
The Court described their conduct as "absolutely contemptuous" and said it could refer the matter to the Bar Council of U.P. to initiate disciplinary proceedings, while also initiating contempt proceedings.
Noting that the state has only 1 State Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and 12 Regional FSLs, the Allahabad High Court observed that Uttar Pradesh's existing FSL infrastructure is 'insufficient' considering the state's size and population.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra has directed the Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh, to file an exhaustive counter-affidavit within 4 weeks addressing the issue.
Case Title : Committee of Management, Sarvajanik Arya Inter College & Anr. vS. State of U.P. & Ors.
The Allahabad High Court suspended an order passed by the Bijnor District Magistrate concerning the management of the traditional annual Jaahar Divan (Goga Naumi) fair, observing that the order was prima facie without jurisdiction and amounted to an apparent usurpation of jurisdiction.
The Court also permitted the petitioners to hold and organize the fair in Pheona village, Tehsil Chandpur, Bijnor, subject to obtaining the necessary permissions from the authorities.
Case Title : Bhimsen Singh Alias Raju vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the Uttar Pradesh Government on the Supreme Court's August 2026 observations that the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, is 'stillborn'.
A Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh also stayed criminal proceedings against an accused booked under the Act while noting that the Supreme Court had held that the Act does not create any crime or offence but merely defines the status of a person as a 'gangster'.
Case Title : Santosh Kumar And 31 Others vs. State Election Commissioner(Panchayat And Local Bodies)U.P.State Election Commission,Lko.And 52 Ors
The Allahabad High Court has sought a response from the Uttar Pradesh State Election Commission over the alleged illegal deletion of 32 persons' names from the Panchayat voter list of a village in Balrampur district.
A Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdesh Kumar Chaudhary was hearing a writ petition filed by Santosh Kumar and 31 others, alleging that their names had been illegally deleted during the revision of the electoral roll.
The Allahabad High Court questioned the Uttar Pradesh Police's failure to submit a charge-sheet to the competent court in a case, despite having drawn it up nearly a year ago, remarking that "there is something more than meets the eye".
A Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Rajeev Bharti directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit explaining why the charge-sheet has not been submitted before the concerned court and what remedial or punitive action would be taken in such matters.
Case Title : Rajesh vs. State of U.P.
Expressing concern over incidents of disruption of court proceedings and differences between the Bar and the Bench, the Allahabad High Court advised young advocates to focus on their studies and preparation of cases rather than increasing their social media likes.
A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal added that young advocates are the future of the High Court as they go on to become senior advocates as well as Judges of the HC.
Amid ongoing tensions between the Bar and the Bench at the Allahabad High Court, the Allahabad High Court Bar Association (HCBA) has written to the newly elected office-bearers of the Oudh Bar Association, seeking their intervention and appropriate action to restrain Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal from participating in judicial proceedings.
In a letter dated October 31, 2026, addressed to the newly elected President and General Secretary of the Oudh Bar Association, the HCBA expressed concern over two orders passed by Justice Deshwal on October 28 and 29, 2026, alleging that they were against the interests and reputation of the advocates' community.