Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up : January 19 To January 25, 2026

Shreya Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 26 Victim X in Fir No.048 of 2025 P.s. Katra Bazar Distt. Gonda Thru.next Best Friend Her Mother Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Social Welfare Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 27 M/S Wizitec Private Limited Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 28 C/M Madarsa Ahle Sunnat Imam Ahmad Raza Thru.Manager,Abdul Rahman Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Minority Welfare Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 29 Himanshu Srivastava and 2 others vs. State of U.P and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 30 Shyam Mohan vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 31 Kashmiri And 3 Others Versus U.P.S.R.T.C. Thru Regional Manager And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 32 Banaras Hindu University And 4 Others v. Nameirakpamshangbanabi Devi 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 33 Avneesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 34 Dinesh Kumar Jindal v. Debt Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 35 Sudhindra V. Desai And 5 Others Versus U.P. Pollution Control Buard Thru. Its Assistant Environmental Engineer Shri Ashutosh Pandey Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 36 Vineeta vs. Dr Ved Prakash Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 37 Faisal Khan vs. U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board Thru. Chief Executive Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 38 Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others Versus State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) Govt. of U.P., Lucknow and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 39 Umang Rastogi And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 40 Chandresh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 41 ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK Right To Appear In Exams Akin To Right To Life : Allahabad High Court Orders Special Exam For Student Left Out Over Portal Glitch Case title - Shreya Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 26 Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 26 The Allahabad High Court has observed that the right to appear in an examination is akin to the right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Adding that a student's future cannot be jeopardised due to “technical lapses” or administrative inertia, a bench of Justice Vivek Saran directed a Prayagraj-based university to conduct a special examination for a B.Sc. student who was denied an admit card because the university portal failed to update her admission records. The Uttarakhand High Court recently took strong exception to the spate of online rape and death threats issued against a woman advocate who appeared as counsel for rape accused Akhtar Ali in the Nainital case. POCSO Act | Victim Compensation Can't Be Withheld For Want Of Injury Report: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Victim X in Fir No.048 of 2025 P.s. Katra Bazar Distt. Gonda Thru.next Best Friend Her Mother Versus State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Social Welfare Lko. and 2 others Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 27 The Allahabad High Court has held that compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015 must be granted if the FIR discloses the offence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It held that merely because no injuries are stated in the injury report, such compensation cannot be denied. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held “Under the Scheme, compensation is to be paid to the victim of penetrative sexual assault not because the victim has sustained injuries during the penetrative sexual assault, but due to the very fact of having suffered the penetrative sexual assault. Therefore, till such time, the offence is covered within the definition of penetrative sexual assault as per Section 3 of the POSCO Act, it is immaterial whether there is any injury or not and only because there is no injury that cannot be a ground to refuse compensation to such victims.” Indefinite Blacklisting Violates Articles 14 & 19(1)(g): Allahabad High Court Quashes Order Passed Without Considering Defence Case Title: M/S Wizitec Private Limited Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 28 [WRIT - C No. - 44710 of 2025] Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 28 Holding that an administrative order cannot be "excessively punitive nor devoid of reasoned legal justification", the Allahabad High Court recently quashed a blacklisting order passed by a District Basic Education Officer (BSA) against a service provider. The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held “Debarment has been recognized as a method of disciplining deviant suppliers, however, an order of debarment can never be for an indefinite period…the Court must balance the need to protect public interest with procedural fairness, ensuring that administrative measures such as...

Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up : January 19 To January 25, 2026

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags