Allahabad High Court Monthly Digest: February 2026
Sparsh Upadhyay
3 March 2026 1:10 PM IST
[NOMINAL INDEX PROVIDED AT THE BOTTOM]
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE MONTH
Case title - Mohammad Shahzad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 50
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 50
The Allahabad High Court has held that the routine practice prevalent in the Family Courts of issuing warrants for recovery and arrest simultaneously is illegal and inhumane and the same must stop.
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla observed that a person liable to pay maintenance is not to be treated as a person who has committed a crime and the dignity and liberty of such an individual cannot be trampled upon by the Courts to enforce a maintenance order
Case title - Arju @ Vimal vs. Umakant Parasar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 51
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is no legal impediment to order a transfer of a case by invoking powers under Section 24 Civil Procedure Code when the contesting parties are ad idem (in agreement).
The Court added that in cases of consensual transfers, the requirement for a detailed comparative examination of the balance of convenience stands considerably diluted.
The observation was made by a bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava while allowing a transfer application in a divorce suit. The Court said that while the plaintiff is ordinarily the dominus litis (master of the suit), this right is deemed waived when the transfer is not opposed.
Case title - Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 52
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application filed by former Samajwadi Party MLA Irfan Solanki, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal rejected his plea under Section 528 BNSS as it took into account the fact that the trial is at an advanced stage and that prima facie material is available against him.
Case title - Gaurav Goswami vs. Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar (Rtd.) and 12 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 53
The Allahabad High Court has rejected a contempt application filed against the Supreme Court-appointed High-Powered Temple Management Committee, led by Justice Ashok Kumar (Rtd.), for increasing the darshan timings at the Thakur Shri Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple (in Vrindavan-Mathura), allegedly in violation of HC's Novemebr 2022 order.
A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal noted that the Committee, empowered by the Top Court to oversee the day-to-day affairs of the temple, had decided to increase the darshan time, in light of the huge influx of pilgrims at the Temple who are facing great hardship.
Case title - Moti Lal Yadav vs. Chief Election Commissioner Election Commisn.of India and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 54
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed in 2013 seeking a ban on all caste-based political rallies and a direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to cancel the registration of political parties that organise such rallies.
Noting that the State Government has already imposed a complete prohibition on such gatherings to preserve public order, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary expected a strict and effective implementation of the Government order.
Case title - Avneesh Gupta (Minor) vs. Consortium of National Law Universities 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 55
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 55
In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court directed the Consortium of National Law Universities to revise the merit list for CLAT-UG-2026.
The order was passed after a single judge found that the high-powered 'Oversight Committee' had arbitrarily overruled subject matter experts regarding a disputed question without assigning any reasons for the same.
A bench of Justice Vivek Saran has ordered the Consortium to treat two options ('B' & 'D') as correct for the disputed Question No. 9 (in Booklet-C) and to all other questions which correspond to the same in different booklets of CLAT-2026 entrance examination and republish the merit list within one month.
Case title - Sunil Kandu @ Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 56
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 56
The Allahabad High Court awarded a compensation of Rs 1 Lakh to a man who was wrongfully arrested and detained by the Uttar Pradesh police in 2017 without proper investigation or credible evidence against him.
A bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh noted that the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 had been infringed by an arbitrary and capricious action on the part of the arresting police personnel and that he was a helpless victim of that act.
Case title - Satti Din and another vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 57
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 57
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a 100-year-old man in connection with a murder case dating back to 1982. The acquittal was based on the merits of the case, specifically the prosecution's failure to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
In its 23-page Judgment, a bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Sanjiv Kumar made certain pertinent observations regarding the age of the accused.
Case title - Bechan Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 58
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 58
The Allahabad High Court castigated an advocate for attempting to portray a rape survivor as a "woman of easy virtue" and warned him to exercise due care and restraint in the manner of making submissions before the Court.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X observed that filing such pleadings, which contain scandalous allegations questioning the character and dignity of a woman, violates the woman's right to dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Dev Sahayam Deniyal Raj And Another vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 59
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 59
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to a Tamil Nadu resident (Dev Sahayam Deniyal Raj) in a case involving alleged unlawful religious conversion in Mirzapur.
UP Police has claimed that Deniyal was the gang leader who lured people into converting, and his gang has so far converted 70 people and was planning to convert 500 more when he was arrested in September last year.
Case title - Vijendra Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Emphasizing that the procedural mandate for supplying police reports to an accused is not a mere formality but the "epitome of a fair trial", the Allahabad High Court quashed charges framed against an accused under the BNS and POCSO Act over non-compliance with Section 230 BNSS [Supply to accused of copy of police report and other documents].
A bench of Justice Avnish Saxena thus allowed a petition filed by an accused under Section 528 BNSS and observed that any trial proceeding conducted in contravention of Section 230 BNSS violates the cardinal principle of a free and fair trial.
Case title - Abhay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 61
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 61
The Allahabad High Court ordered the immediate release of Abhay Kumar, director of MZ Wiztown Planners, who was arrested last month in connection with the drowning of software engineer Yuvraj Mehta in a waterlogged pit near a construction site in Uttar Pradesh's Noida.
A Bench of Justice Siddhartha and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay observed that his arrest was carried out in violation of the High Court's recent judgment in the case of Umang Rastogi and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 40, specifically in violation of Clause 13 of the memo of arrest.
Case Title: XXX v. Chairman U.G.C. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 62
The Allahabad High Court set aside a direction passed by a Single Judge asking a rusticated university student to stand at the university gate for 30 minutes (for 30 days) carrying a placard with the message that he would "never misbehave with any girl".
Terming the direction as unjustified and humiliating, a bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra added that such a punishment would leave a "permanent scar" on the student's character.
Case Title: Priyank Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 63
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 63
The Allahabad High Court deprecated the practice of trial court judges mentioning the names of the Judges of the Supreme Court in their orders while relying on a precedent from the Top Court.
The Court termed the system as "totally uncalled for" and one which could not be appreciated. It reminded judicial officers that only the citation, case number and the relevant text should be quoted in their orders.
Case title - Shyam Sundar and another vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 64
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 64
Taking a stern view against two litigants who claimed that the Trial Judge had issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against them under the 'persuasion' of the complainant's advocate brother, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a transfer plea with an exemplary cost of Rs. 1 Lakh.
A bench of Justice Samit Gopal observed that the applicants had sworn the affidavit on a "perusal of records", but the records contained no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claim that the Presiding Officer had been influenced in his private chamber.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 65
In an interesting order passed recently, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) decoded a Chaupai from Shri Ramcharitmanas, an epic poem in the Awadhi language by the 16th-century Indian poet Goswami Tulsidas, for a Lawyer.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also delivered a sharp lesson to the counsel who attempted to rely on the verse without understanding its true context.
Case Title: Kamalesh Agnihotri @ Kamal And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 66
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 66
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed criminal proceedings against the office bearers of a Resident Welfare Association (RWA) of a Lucknow-based society, initiated at the instance of a person claiming to be a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).
A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia observed that a “highly disciplined and respected cultural organisation like the RSS” had been maligned by its member (informant) who had misused his status to settle a personal parking dispute, which amounted to an abuse of the process of law.
Case title - Anoop Kumar And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 67
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 67
The Allahabad High Court slammed the claim of the state government that a Station House Officer in Mainpuri had no knowledge about the July 2025 circular of the Director General of Police regarding a new memorandum of arrest.
Declaring the arrest of two persons-petitioners as illegal over non-supply of an arrest ground to them, a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay stressed that ignorance of law cannot be a valid excuse for violating the same.
Case Title: Ravi Joel Tudu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 68 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7472 of 2024]
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 68
The Allahabad High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the Assistant Principal of St. Peter's School Raebareli after a 6 years old student, caught cheating in exam, committed suicide.
Petitioner argued though the student had mentioned in his suicide note that he was caught cheating in the exam, Petitioner was not named in the suicide note nor in the FIR.
It was pleaded that since the Principal was not present in the school, the child was produced before the Petitioner and was left with a stern warning. He also pleaded that there was no physical harm done to the child at any stage.
Case Title: Sunita Minor And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 8 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 69
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 69
The Uttar Pradesh Government informed the Allahabad High Court that it has written to the Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India, with suggestions for amendments to the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2016.
The UP Government gave this proposal days after the High Court raised serious concerns regarding the mentioning of caste and religion of the minor children kept at Rajkiya Balgrih/Children's Home.
Case title - Ashish Shukla vs State Of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Case ciation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 70
The Allahabad High Court refused bail to an advocate who has been accused of forging his Class XII Marksheet and getting himself registered with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of the said document.
A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal quoted the Sanskrit Shloka "आचारः परमो धर्मः।" [Meaning: Righteous conduct is the highest duty.] to stress that an advocate is an officer of the Court, and when he himself resorts to such illegality, it constitutes a grave and deliberate fraud upon the institution of justice.
Case title - Mohd. Azeem Idrishi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another and connected case 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 71
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 71
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed the entire criminal proceedings against two persons who were wrongly arrested by UP Police without verifying their involvement in connection with Rape and Fraud cases, respectively.
A bench of Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari stressed that deprivation of liberty of a person on account of mistaken identity is impermissible in law and strikes at the very root of the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case title - Abhishek Jaiswal vs. PNB Head Office Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 72
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 72
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) quashed a one-line order passed by the Punjab National Bank (PNB) rejecting the compassionate appointment claim of a deceased employee's son.
While allowing the petition filed by one Abhishek Jaiswal, a bench of Justice Shree Prakash Singh observed that the word 'compassion' cannot be considered in a vacuum, as it denotes sympathy, kindness and a soft feeling of human sentiment.
Case title - Dinesh And 8 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 73
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 73
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the caste of a person assigned at the time of his birth remains the same even if he changes his religion. The Court added that even the marriage of a woman does not change her caste.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X thus DISMISSED a criminal appeal filed by Dinesh and 8 others challenging an order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Aligarh, summoning them to face trial for offences under Sections 323, 506, 452 and 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(R) of the SC/ST Act.
Case title - Samiya And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 74
The Allahabad High Court reiterated the State's obligation to protect the life and liberty of couples marrying against familial wishes. The Court directed strict compliance with the UP Government 2019 Order, which sets out mandatory preventive and remedial measures for such couples.
While disposing of a protection plea for a couple, a bench of Justice Garima Prashad noted that police authorities are bound to assess threat perception in each case and extend the necessary protection, including safe accommodation and security, depending on the gravity of the situation.
Case title - Moti Lal Yadav vs. Honble Chief Minister Thru. Cabinet Secy. State Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 75
After the Uttar Pradesh Government submitted that it is in the process of constituting an OBC Commission for the purposes of ensuring Panchayat elections as per law, the Allahabad High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning the issue.
A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary was hearing a PIL plea filed by Advocate Moti Lal Yadav, which argued that the proposal to form a 6-member dedicated OBC commission has been pending before the state cabinet (CM Yogi Adityanath) for more than 5 months.
Case Title: Shivam Chaurasiya Thru. His Brother Mr. Manas Chaurasiya Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 76
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 76
The Allahabad High Court has granted relief in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, observing that supplying grounds of arrest on a separate paper to the accused is invalid when the same is not referenced in the arrest memo and lacks witness attestation.
The bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani held:
"As per Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023, under which the arrest memo is to be issued, it is categorically provided that the memorandum of arrest would be attested by atleast one witness who is the member of a family of a person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made duly countersigned by the person arrested".
Case title - Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 77
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 77
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging an order passed on the wife's application under Section 125 CrPC, as it noted that there is a substantial disparity in the earning capacity and financial status of the parties.
The bench noted that the income attributed to the wife cannot be said to be sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living to which she was accustomed during her matrimonial life.
Case title - Alice Lee @ Li Tengli vs. Union Of India And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 78
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 78
While granting bail to a Chinese national accused of tax evasion, the Allahabad High Court took serious objection to a counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST (the Deponent), wherein the names of Supreme Court Judges were mentioned while referring to their judgment.
"This system of mentioning the names of Hon'ble Judges while giving reference to the judgments is totally uncalled for", a bench of Justice Samit Gopal remarked.
Case title - Kunal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 79
The Allahabad High Court made a separate reference for initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against an advocate who accused the Court in open court of "working under the pressure of the Government" and lacking the 'courage' to seek an explanation from the police.
A bench of Justice Santosh Rai found the conduct of the advocate (Ashutosh Kumar Mishra) as "highly objectionable, scandalous and derogatory" and noted it prima facie fell within the ambit of 'criminal contempt' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Case Title: Abdul Qadir And Another v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 80
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 80
The Allahabad High Court denied bail to two accused in the Codeine Cough Syrup Racket on grounds that huge quantity of illegally diverted Codeine based Cough Syrup was recovered from them.
Justice Ashutosh Srivastava held,
“In the opinion of the Court the exemption provisions are required to be strictly and literally complied with and further that the conditions under which the exemption is granted is strictly adhered to…Any violation of any condition would desentitle the claimant the exemption. In the instant case the possession of huge quantity of illegally diverted Codeine based Cough Syrup has been recovered and thus the condition 'established in therapeutic practice' is flagrantly violated denying the applicants of the exemption.”
Case title - Sonu And 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 81
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Magistrate is legally bound to consider and pass an order on the Final Report (closure report) filed by the police, even in those cases where he has already taken cognizance of the offence based on an earlier charge sheet.
A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X added that if the Magistrate proceeds further in the case without considering the Final Report at all, such inaction amounts to a "procedural illegality".
Case title - Jai Kumar Aggarwal vs. Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 82
The Allahabad High Court has held that while the "reasons to believe” recorded by the Commissioner under Section 69 CGST Act 2017 need not be furnished to the accused, the "grounds of arrest" must mandatorily be supplied to him as an Annexure to the Arrest Memo.
A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay thus allowed the habeas corpus writ petition filed by one Jai Kumar Aggarwal while setting aside the remand order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
Case title - Khush R Goel vs Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 83
The Allahabad High Court has held that a certificate issued by the District Magistrate under Section 7 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, acts as conclusive proof of gender/identity for the issuance of a passport.
A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan observed that the Passport Authority can't demand a fresh medical examination or changes to the birth certificate for the issuance of a passport.
Case Title: Smt Mugga Devi And 4 Others v. Makkhan Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 84 [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1995 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 84
The Allahabad High Court has held that pension being received by the claimant and the family pension received by the legal heirs of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident should not be considered at the time of calculating compensations under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Sebastiani Lakra and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another and Hanumantharaju B. through LR vs. M. Akram Pasha and another, Justice Sandeep Jain held
“It is apparent from the above judgements of the Apex Court that the pension paid to the claimant or family pension being paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee is not to be considered and deducted while assessing compensation in the claim case and the compensation is to be determined on the basis of salary/pension of the injured/deceased, which he was getting at the time of the accident.”
Case title - Ram Shanker Shukla And Another vs. Madhukar Shukla And 7 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 85
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 85
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) observed that a statement made by a counsel without specific instructions from the client can't be treated as a binding undertaking for the purpose of contempt proceedings.
A bench of Justice Manish Kumar thus withdrew contempt charges for alleged wilful disobedience of a Court order against the respondent.
Case title - Sunil Kumar Gupta Alias Sunil Chain Thru. His Son Akshit Gupta vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs , New Delhi And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 86
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has observed that a detention order under the National Security Act 1980 can be passed against an accused who is already in jail if the authority is of the opinion that, upon his release on bail, he will indulge in acts prejudicial to public order.
A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Babita Rani thus dismissed a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by one Sunil Kumar Gupta, challenging the invocation of the NSA against himwhile they were in jail.
Case title - Azeem Ahmad Khan Alias Abeem Ahmad And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 87
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 87
The Allahabad High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against two students who were implicated for offering Namaz at a location designated by the local administration for that purpose.
A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava also warned the students to follow the instructions and specific restraints issued by the local administration in the future.
Case Title: Vikas Chaudhary And Another v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 88 [WRIT - C No. - 41622 of 2025]
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 88
In a petition seeking CRPF protection for life, the Allahabad High Court held that having police protection has become more of a status symbol at the cost of taxpayers' money.
The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan observed
“..it can very well be held that the nature of threat perception and the liability to provide security has to be left to be decided by the authorities concerned, since this is clearly a question of fact to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty and not for this Court to determine while exercising it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, we find that the provision for security in the shape of police personnel has become more of a status symbol by means of which, a privileged class has been created at the expense of the State and the taxpayers' money.”
Case title - Mani Miraj Alias Ramdi Miraj Alam vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 89
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 89
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to YouTuber and Comedian Mani Miraj, alias Ramdi Miraj Alam, who is facing serious allegations of rape, assault, unnatural offences and forced abortion.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary after the informant/victim personally appeared before the Court and submitted a handwritten statement confirming a mutual compromise between the parties.
Case Title: Shivdhari Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 90 [WRIT - C No. - 130 of 2026]
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 90
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Collector has the power under Rule 64(2)(b) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 to cancel allotment of a residential plot if construction is not made on it within a reasonable time and after giving notices to the concerned party.
Justice Alok Mathur held,
“To ensure effectiveness of the provision for allotment of residential sites and to ensure its compliance it is undoubtedly necessary that the land should be used for the purpose of construction of a house within a reasonable time. In case, for any reason, the allottee has not been able to construct house, notice should certainly be given to him requiring him to construct his house within the time prescribed and even if within the time prescribed he or she does not construct house it would certainly be open for the Collector to invoke the powers under Sub clause 2 (b) of Rule 64 and cancel the allotment.”
Case title - Prema Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 91
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) held that the State is absolutely liable for the unnatural death of a prisoner in its custody, even if the death is a patently unnatural suicide.
A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla ruled that the right to life and human dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is an intrinsic, inviolable and omnipresent right extended even to an individual who is illegally arrested and detained by the State.
Case Title: Noori And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 92
While dealing with a bunch of petitions relating to interfaith couples in live-in relationships, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 does not prohibit inter-religion relationships, be it interfaith live-in relationships or interfaith marriage.
Holding that right to choose a partner and right to live with dignity are part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held,
“Right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. This Court fails to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to hetrosexual relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together.”
Case title - Raees vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who spent approximately 23 years in jail on the charges of the gruesome murder of his wife and 3 children, as it concluded that the prosecution's evidence did not conclusively prove that the offence was committed by him.
In its 10-page order, a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay said that the case was a sad commentary on our criminal justice delivery system and it required introspection.
Case title - In Re vs. Shri Hari Narayan Pandey Advocate 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 94
The Allahabad High Court warned social media users against hurling online abuses directed at the judiciary that go beyond the defence of fair comment or informed criticism of a judgment.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava added that if the court takes cognizance of such posts in contempt jurisdiction, the same will attract strict legal consequences.
"…we do wish to remind the public to be cautious in future, because words that are most unambiguously contumacious, circulate on the social media, which, as and when, taken cognizance of in our contempt jurisdiction, may expose the contemnor to penalties of the law, which the Court may not hesitate to impose", the Court remarked.
Case title - Hasnen vs Union of India and 5 others and connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 95
The Allahabad High Court upheld the detention of 3 persons under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, who were accused of illegally slaughtering cattle in the town of Kalpi, Jalaun, in March 2025, on the first day of Chaitra Navratri, coinciding with the very event of Eid.
A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I noted that the alleged act, precisely timed at a confluence of major religious festivals in a nation as ancient and as diverse as ours, was not a mere "law and order" problem and it squarely fell within the ambit of "public order".
Case title - Kirti Verma vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 96
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the directions for fresh recording of a statement under Section 183 BNSS before the Magistrate can be given only under exceptional circumstances.
"…the power is not a routine or an automatic power but is exercised by High Court or Supreme Court to prevent abuse of process, to secure ends of justice or rectify grave procedural irregularities that could lead to miscarriage of justice", a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Achal Sachdev remarked.
NOMINAL INDEX
Mohammad Shahzad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 50
Arju @ Vimal vs. Umakant Parasar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Irfan Solanki vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 52
Gaurav Goswami vs. Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar (Rtd.) and 12 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Moti Lal Yadav vs. Chief Election Commissioner Election Commisn.of India and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 54
Avneesh Gupta (Minor) vs. Consortium of National Law Universities 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 55
Sunil Kandu @ Sunil Kumar Gupta vs. Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 56
Satti Din and another vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 57
Bechan Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 58
Dev Sahayam Deniyal Raj And Another vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 59
Vijendra Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 60
Abhay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 61
XXX v. Chairman U.G.C. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 62
Priyank Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 63
Shyam Sundar and another vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 64
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 65
Kamalesh Agnihotri @ Kamal And 2 Others vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 66
Anoop Kumar And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 67
Ravi Joel Tudu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 68
Sunita Minor And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 8 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 69
Ashish Shukla vs State Of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 70
Mohd. Azeem Idrishi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another and connected case 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 71
Abhishek Jaiswal vs. PNB Head Office Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 72
Dinesh And 8 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 73
Samiya And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 74
Moti Lal Yadav vs. Honble Chief Minister Thru. Cabinet Secy. State Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 75
Shivam Chaurasiya Thru. His Brother Mr. Manas Chaurasiya Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 76
Ravinder Singh Bisht vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 77
Alice Lee @ Li Tengli vs. Union Of India And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 78
Kunal vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 79
Abdul Qadir And Another v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 80
Sonu And 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 81
Jai Kumar Aggarwal vs. Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 82
Khush R Goel vs Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 83
Smt Mugga Devi And 4 Others v. Makkhan Singh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 84
Ram Shanker Shukla And Another vs. Madhukar Shukla And 7 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 85
Sunil Kumar Gupta Alias Sunil Chain Thru. His Son Akshit Gupta vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs , New Delhi And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 86
Azeem Ahmad Khan Alias Abeem Ahmad And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 87
Vikas Chaudhary And Another v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 88
Mani Miraj Alias Ramdi Miraj Alam vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 89
Shivdhari Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue, Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 90
Prema Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 91
Noori And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Raees vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93
In Re vs. Shri Hari Narayan Pandey Advocate 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Hasnen vs Union of India and 5 others and connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Kirti Verma vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 96