JUDGMENTS/ORDERS OF THE MONTH

Allahabad High Court Says Licensed Gun Can't Be Used For 'Joy Firing'; Licensee Must Maintain Ammunition Records

Case Title: Akhilesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 505

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 505

The Allahabad High Court said that a licensed firearm cannot be used for "joy firing" during marriages or religious festivals and that every arms licensee is duty-bound to maintain records of ammunition purchased and its use.

Observing that an arms licence is a 'privilege' subject to strict compliance with statutory conditions, the Court refused to interfere with the cancellation of an arms licence after the licensee failed to account for 757 cartridges allegedly used over the years.

Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Term For Man Who Strangled Live-In Partner, Her Mother & 2 Minor Children In 2009

Case Title - Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 506

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 506

The Allahabad High Court upheld the conviction and life sentence awarded to a man for strangulating his live-in partner, her mother and her two minor children to death in Hardoi in 2009.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary found that the prosecution had been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused/appellant beyond the pale of doubt and that there existed a ring of truth in the prosecution story.

Notarized Affidavits Accepted: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Litigants Need Not Travel For Photo Verification Before Filing Writ Petitions

Case Title - Biswajit Chowdhury vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 507

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 507

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that an affidavit duly notarised anywhere in the country is accepted at the stage of filing a writ petition, and that litigants are not required to travel to the HC benches in Allahabad or Lucknow for photo verification before instituting writ proceedings.

A Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai made the clarification while dealing with a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Photo Affidavit Identification Regime.

Disproportionate Assets Case | Mere Reduction In Alleged Excess Assets During Probe No Ground For Discharge: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Anup Kumar Shrivastava vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 508

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 508

The Allahabad High Court has held that an accused facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot seek discharge merely because the alleged disproportionate assets were reduced during investigation.

It clarified that the mere fact that the discrepancy between income and expenditure was whittled down after investigation, or that such discrepancy constituted only a small fraction of the accused's income, is by itself no ground to discharge the accused.

No Illegal Detention: Allahabad High Court Rejects Husband's Habeas Corpus Plea After Noting Wife Voluntarily Left Matrimonial Home

Case - Anupam Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 509

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 509

The Allahabad High Court has held that a husband cannot invoke a writ of habeas corpus where the pleadings themselves indicate that the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home and no prima facie case of illegal detention is made out.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the husband should instead avail the statutory remedy under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights.

S. 180 BNSS | Police Must Record Witnesses' Version In Their Own Language, Not Put Inculpatory Leading Questions: Allahabad High Court

Case - Aatish Alias Krishnkant v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 510

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 510

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to issue necessary directions to all police officers to ensure that while recording statements under Section 180 BNSS, they do not put inculpatory leading questions to witnesses and instead record the version stated by the witness in his or her own language, except for seeking clarification on certain points.

Non-Functional CCTV Cameras, Electricity Backup Facilities In Police Stations Reflect Dereliction Of Duty By SPs: Allahabad High Court

Case - Nagendra Kumar Yaqdav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 511

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 511

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that non-functional CCTV cameras and backup power facilities, such as generator sets and solar panels, in police stations amount to "dereliction in discharge of duties" by the Superintendent of Police.

The bench added that it is the primary duty of the SP, or Senior Superintendent of Police, to ensure that police stations remain fully equipped with these essential facilities.

Allahabad High Court Quashes Govt Teacher's Suspension Over Social Media Posts Alleging Misdeeds By BJP Leader

Case - Pradeep Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 512

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 512

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the suspension of a government primary school teacher who was suspended for social media posts allegedly highlighting the misdeeds of a BJP leader.

A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan said that merely bringing to light an alleged act of wrongdoing, embezzlement or any matter affecting public interest cannot by itself be construed as 'misconduct'.

Allahabad High Court Upholds Life Term Of Father, Brother In 'Honour Killing' Of 2 Minor Girls; Relies On Pre- & Post-Crime Conduct

Case Title - Ram Prasad and Anr. vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 513

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 513

The Allahabad High Court affirmed the conviction and life sentence of a father and his son for the 'Honour Killing' of 2 minor girls after finding the appellants' conduct before and after the commission of the crime to be "highly relevant" under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi thus dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Ram Prasad and his son, Chandra Bhan, while upholding the 2019 judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court-II), Amroha.

Allahabad High Court Calls For Crowd Behaviour Science To Prevent Stampedes At Mathura-Vrindavan Religious Gatherings

Case Title: Swami Shiv Swarupanand Ji Maharaj vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 514

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 514

The Allahabad High Court has held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution casts a positive obligation on the State to create and maintain conditions in which lives are not lost to preventable disasters. It held that institutionalising the science of crowd behaviour in academia, administration and policy is a constitutional imperative.

Disputed Signatures On Photocopy Can't Be Sent For Handwriting Examination Without Original Document: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Udayveer Singh vs. Rent Tribunal and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 515

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 515

The Allahabad High Court has held that disputed signatures appearing on a photocopy of a document cannot be referred for scientific examination by a handwriting expert where the original has not been produced, since a photocopy does not preserve the characteristics on which a meaningful comparison of handwriting depends.

It held that the decisive consideration is whether the material proposed to be examined can furnish dependable scientific assistance, and that this assessment lies within the discretion of the authority before which the document is produced.

Last Seen Theory Alone Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three In 1996 Double Murder Case

Case Title - Sobaran & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 516

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 516

The Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of 3 men in a 1996 double murder case while observing that a conviction in a case based on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained solely on the "last seen together" theory/evidence unless every link in the chain of circumstances is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court found that in this case, the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of incriminating circumstances and that the trial court had wrongly relied on unreliable "last seen" evidence and a doubtful recovery of the alleged murder weapons.

Reliable Dying Declaration Alone Can Be Basis For Conviction: Allahabad High Court Affirms Life Sentence Of 2 For Setting Woman Ablaze

Case Title - Sarita Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 517

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 517

The Allahabad High Court affirmed the life sentence awarded to 2 women for killing a married woman by setting her ablaze while observing that a dying declaration which is voluntary, truthful and recorded when the maker is in a fit state of mind can, by itself, form the basis of conviction.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava thus dismissed the criminal appeals filed by Sarita Devi (sister-in-law of the deceased) and Malti Devi, challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, convicting them under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to imprisonment for life.

How Should A Test Identification Parade (TIP) Be Conducted? Allahabad High Court Explains Step-By-Step Procedure

Case title - Kanahi and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 518

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 518

The Allahabad High Court elaborately explained the step-by-step procedure governing the conduct of a Test Identification Parade (TIP).

The bench clarified that such an identification parade must strictly comply with the safeguards prescribed under the UP Police Regulations and the UP Jail Manual, as any unexplained delay or procedural lapse seriously undermines their evidentiary value.

'Helpless Girl' Allegedly Murdered By Own Family: Allahabad High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Aunt, Uncle In 'Honour Killing' Case

Case title - Murari Lal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 519

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 519

The Allahabad High Court refused anticipatory bail to the aunt (bua) and uncle (fufa) of a woman allegedly murdered in an 'honour killing' in Agra, observing that the case involved serious allegations and that the applicants' custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the truth.

The Court also noted that the applicants had allegedly remained absconding for the past 7 months despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants.

Forum For Landlord-Tenant Dispute Determined By Law In Force When Suit Is Filed, Not When Tenancy Ends: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Manoharlal (Deceased) and 4 others vs. Jagdish Prasad Goel 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 520

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 520

The Allahabad High Court has held that the forum competent to decide a landlord-tenant dispute is determined by the law in force on the date the suit is instituted, and not by the law prevailing when the tenancy was terminated or the cause of action arose.

Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that where a landlord-tenant dispute is instituted after the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 and is otherwise governed by that Act, the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to entertain it.

Wife's Convenience, Child's Welfare Relevant But Can't Automatically Justify Transfer Of Matrimonial Case: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: P vs. V 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 521

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 521

The Allahabad High Court has held that the convenience of the wife and the welfare of a minor child, though relevant considerations in matrimonial disputes, are not inflexible or overriding grounds for transfer of proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It held that the decisive test is whether refusal of transfer would occasion a failure of justice, and that the burden of establishing genuine hardship lies on the applicant.

Employee Absorbed In New Cadre Can't Be Denied Its Benefits Due To Initial Appointment In Another Cadre: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Putti Lal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Power Lko. And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 522

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 522

The Allahabad High Court has held that once an employee is permanently absorbed in a cadre, he becomes a member of that cadre for all service purposes, and the cadre in which he was first appointed cannot thereafter be used to deny him the financial benefits attached to the cadre he was absorbed into.

It held that upon absorption, the lien on the earlier post and the incidents of the earlier cadre cease to govern the employee's service conditions.

Medical Representative Is Not 'Workman' Under Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Anil Verma vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523

The Allahabad High Court has held that a medical representative is not a 'workman' under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976.

Section 6(2) of the Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 provides that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as in force for the time being, shall apply to sales promotion employees as they apply to workmen within the meaning of that Act.

Character Certificate Can't Be Denied Merely Due To Pendency Of Criminal Case: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Bharat Lal Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 524

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 524

The Allahabad High Court has held that a character certificate cannot be denied merely because a criminal case is pending against the applicant.

The bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran held that the pendency of a criminal case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC, by itself, could not be a ground to reject an application for issuance of a character certificate.

“….we are of the opinion that due to pendency of the aforesaid case under Section 323, 504 and 506 IPC, the application for grant of character certificate could not be rejected,”

Insurance Company Can't File Writ To Challenge Compensation Granted To Beneficiary Under Govt Welfare Scheme: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt Rachna Singh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 525

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 525

The Allahabad High Court has held that an insurance company cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge compensation awarded to a beneficiary under a government welfare scheme by relying on alleged violations of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed between the insurer and the State Government.

It held that such a dispute is essentially contractual in nature and must be pursued before an appropriate civil, commercial or arbitral forum.

Does Rejection Of Bail Bar Subsequent Challenge To Legality Of Arrest? Allahabad High Court Answers

Case title - Rakesh vs State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 526

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 526

Distinguishing the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kusum Sahu [2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1110], the Allahabad High Court last week held that rejection of a regular bail application does not, by itself, bar a subsequent challenge to the legality of an arrest and judicial remand under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena clarified that the principle laid down in Kusum Sahu would not apply where the Court is concerned solely with the legality of the arrest and remand order, and not with the merits of the prosecution or the defence.

Allahabad High Court Refuses To Ban UP Cricket Association Or Order CBI Probe Into Assets Transfer

Case Title: The Cricket Association of Uttar Pradesh vs. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 527

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 527

The Allahabad High Court has refused to ban or initiate CBI inquiry against the Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association (UPCA). It has also held that no mandamus can be issued to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to take over the assets of the UPCA as the UPCA was company incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Police Cannot Interfere In Civil Property Disputes: Allahabad High Court Warns Deviations May Invite Departmental & Contempt Proceedings

Case title - Indra Pati And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 528

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 528

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that police authorities and Executive officers have no jurisdiction to adjudicate or interfere in civil disputes between private parties, while clarifying that any deviation may invite departmental as well as contempt proceedings.

In its order passed on July 27, the Court emphasized that police can intervene only to the limited extent necessary for maintaining public peace and preventing breach of law and order, as provided under the BNSS or CrPC.

Allahabad High Court Asks UP Govt To Fix Conflict In Limitation Period For Recovering Panchayat Fund Losses From Pradhan

Case Title: Harikesh Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 529

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 529

The Allahabad High Court has held that the period within which surcharge can be imposed on a Gram Pradhan for loss, waste or misapplication of Gram Panchayat money or property is governed by the proviso to Section 27 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and not by the shorter period prescribed in the third proviso to Rule 257(2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules 1947. It held that the Rule is in conflict with the Act.

Trial Court Cannot Examine Witness At Pre-Cognizance Stage To Generate Fresh Evidentiary Material: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Randhir and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 530

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 530

The Allahabad High Court has held that a trial court cannot examine a witness at the pre-cognizance stage to generate fresh evidentiary material, as such a course is "wholly" outside the scheme of Section 190 CrPC.

A Bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that a court which has not yet taken cognizance does not possess a "free-standing power" to collect additional or corroborative evidence, as that function belongs to the investigating agency, and its role at that stage is confined to applying its judicial mind to the material already on record.

Contractor Cannot Indirectly Challenge Govt Action Against Another Entity Through Writ Petition: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - M/s Anu Enterprises through Proprietor Anu Singh vs. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow & 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 531

Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 531

The Allahabad High Court has held that a contractor cannot indirectly challenge Government action taken against another entity by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary added that where the grievance essentially arises out of contractual rights flowing from Letters of Intent, the appropriate remedy lies before the arbitral tribunal or the competent civil court.

Unexplained Delay By Public Authority In Deciding Citizen's Application Attracts 'Doctrine Of Malice In Law': Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 532

Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 532

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a public authority sits over a citizen's application for an indefinite period without any reasonable or plausible justification, the inaction by itself attracts the doctrine of malice in law and shows arbitrariness.

It held that an unjustified delay in permitting a citizen to carry on a lawful trade or business must answer to the “golden triangle”, i.e. Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

SARFAESI Act | Allahabad High Court Refuses To Fast-Track Recovery Of Possession, Says Executing Authority May Fix Its Own Priority

Case Title: Shivalik Small Finance Bank Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 533

Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 533

The Allahabad High Court has held that although the District Magistrate must proceed to deliver possession of a secured asset once an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is made, and the function is a ministerial one, the authority is free to fix its priority according to the number of cases pending before it.

The bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran held,

“There is no doubt that the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) has to proceed for dis-possession once an application under Section 14 of the Act is made and the said Act is a ministerial act but it is always upon to the concerned authority to fix priority as per the number of cases pending before it.”

Duty To Maintain Courtesy Towards Colleagues Can't Convert Every Disagreement Or Fair Criticism Into Misconduct: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Prof. Sanjay Mittal vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources and Development and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 534

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 534

The Allahabad High Court has held that a service rule requiring an employee to maintain courtesy in dealings with colleagues cannot be interpreted in a manner that treats every disagreement, fair criticism or discussion about institutional affairs as misconduct.

It held that a faculty member who convenes a meeting to raise concerns about a recruitment process does not thereby commit misconduct, in the absence of material showing an intention to harass, humiliate or undermine a colleague.

Preventive Detention Orders Passed Without Application Of Mind 'Deplorable': Allahabad High Court Urges Union Govt To Redress Situation

Case Title - Gurmel Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 535

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 535

The Allahabad High Court has termed as 'deplorable' the passing of preventive detention orders without application of mind and without reference to the "grounds of detention". It, therefore, urged the Union Government to redress the situation at the earliest in the larger interest of the criminal justice delivery system.

A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi made the observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by one Gurmel Singh.

Teacher Posted On Research Duty Not Entitled To Continue Service Till End Of Academic Session After Retirement: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dr Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 536

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 536

The Allahabad High Court has held that continuation in service till the end of the academic session after superannuation is a concession and not a vested statutory right, and can be claimed only by a teacher who is actually engaged in regular teaching.

It held that an Associate Professor of an agricultural university who had been posted as In-charge of a research station could not claim the benefit merely because he continued to hold a substantive teaching post and drew his salary against it.

UP Police Rules | Agreeing With Inquiry Report Before Seeking Employee's Reply Doesn't Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sant Ram Gautam Constable vs. State Of U.P.Thru Secy And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 537

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 537

The Allahabad High Court has held that a disciplinary authority's expression of agreement with the findings of the inquiry officer, recorded in the show cause notice, does not vitiate the punishment order that follows. It held that such agreement is a pre-condition for issuing the show cause notice at all.

It observed that the inquiry officer's recommendation of punishment is expressly contemplated by Appendix I of Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

Municipal Bodies Can't Recover Rent Dues As Arrears Of Land Revenue, May File Civil Suit: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Rayeesh Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 538

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 538

The Allahabad High Court has held that arrears of rent due to a Nagar Palika Parishad from its tenant cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, as such rent is a contractual due and not a tax.

Section 173-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 permits a Municipality to apply to the Collector for recovery, as if it were an arrear of land revenue, of any sum due to a board on account of a tax, other than a tax payable upon immediate demand. The Collector, on being satisfied that the sum is due, proceeds to recover it in that manner.

PC Act | Strong Suspicion, Not Proof Of Guilt, Is Required At Stage Of Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Refuses Relief To Ex-GST Officer

Case Title - Dhanendra Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 539

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 539

Refusing relief to a former GST Official in a Corruption case, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday observed that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only concerned with a "strong suspicion" that the accused has committed an offence and the final test of proof of guilt is not to be applied.

"…at the stage of consideration of question of discharge of the accused/ revisionist a roving inquiry into material collected during investigation is not called for by the court. Charge can be validly framed against the accused on the basis of grave suspicion raised against him on the basis of material available on record as produced by prosecution", a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed.

Police Constable Can't Be Dismissed Solely On Conviction, Disciplinary Authority Must Consider Conduct Which Led To It: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: State of U.P. and 3 Ors. vs. Raj Narain Yadav Constable 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 540

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 540

The Allahabad High Court has held that a police officer cannot be dismissed from service under Rule 8(2)(a) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 merely because he stands convicted on a criminal charge, unless the disciplinary authority has first considered the conduct which led to that conviction.

It held that such consideration is a condition precedent to the authority acquiring jurisdiction to impose the punishment of dismissal.

No Beef Found, No Evidence Of Transport For Slaughter: Allahabad High Court Orders ₹4.75 Lakh Compensation Over Illegal Vehicle Confiscation

Case Title - Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 541

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 541

The Allahabad High Court quashed the confiscation order of an illegally confiscated vehicle under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, as it noted that the authorities proceeded entirely on assumptions that the bovine animals were being transported outside Uttar Pradesh for slaughter.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain noted that neither any beef nor remains of slaughtered cattle were recovered from the vehicle and there was no material whatsoever to show that the animals were being transported to Bihar or to any slaughterhouse.

Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹6.7 Lakh Costs On Man For Misusing RTI Act, Disturbing Court Proceedings

Case Title - Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 542

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 542

The Allahabad High Court recently imposed costs of ₹6.70 lakh on a party-in-person after finding that he had misused the Right to Information Act, 2005, by repeatedly filing vague RTI applications concerning the Court's internal functioning and also disturbed the judicial proceedings.

A bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery dismissed the writ petition challenging an order of the State Information Commission (SIC) and directed the petitioner to deposit the entire amount with the High Court Legal Service Committee within 4 weeks.

Irrespective Of Rank, Police Officials Cannot Order Further Investigation During Trial Without Court's Permission: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Rakesh Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543

The Allahabad High Court has held that no police officer, irrespective of rank, can direct further investigation in a criminal case during the pendency of trial without first obtaining the permission of the court trying the case.

A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena noted that this was a settled position of the law under Section 173(8) CrPC, however, now it has been expressly incorporated under Section 193(9) BNSS that prior permission of the Court would be required for the police to conduct a further investigation.

No Contact With Wife For Over 5 Months Before Suicide: Allahabad High Court Acquits Husband; Says Giving Dowry Is Also An Offence

Case - Ankur Tandon vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 544

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 544

The Allahabad High Court acquitted a husband who had been convicted of subjecting his wife to cruelty, abetting her suicide and offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, observing that when the trial court itself found that the husband had no contact or communication with his wife for more than 5 months before she died by suicide, it could not be said that he had abetted the commission of suicide.

Allowing the Husband's criminal appeal, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi also observed that under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Penalty for giving or taking dowry), not only taking dowry, but also giving dowry is a punishable offence.

Allahabad High Court Sends Law Student's Zero-Mark Answer Book To BCI, Law Commission; Flags Declining Standards Of Legal Education

Case title - XXX vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 545

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 545

Expressing serious concerns over the declining standards of legal education in the Law Colleges, the Allahabad High Court recently directed that a redacted copy of a law student's evaluated answer book, in which he was awarded zero marks, along with the question paper, be sent to the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Law Commission of India.

The Court asked the BCI to consider whether the standards of legal education presently maintained and the existing mechanism for approval, affiliation and periodic inspection of law institutions require strengthening "to compete with globally competitive legal education standards".

Right Of Consideration For Regularization Doesn't Perish With Employee's Death, Survives Through Legal Heirs: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Hasan Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 546

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 546

The Allahabad High Court has held that the right of consideration for regularization does not come to an end with the death of the employee and survives through his legal representatives, where the regularization exercise had been set in motion in his lifetime.

It held that such consideration must be undertaken, if necessary notionally, so that the consequential service benefits reach the legal heirs.

Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹2.5 Lakh Costs On Builder For Harassing Homebuyer For 13 Yrs Through Frivolous Litigation

Case Title: M/s Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory vs. Mrs. Pratibha Gupta 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 547

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 547

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs on a builder for making the homebuyer go through multiple rounds of frivolous litigation for 13 long years.

Justice Prashant Kumar held,

“Taking note of the hardships and vulnerabilities faced by home-buyers, the Government of India had enacted the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 with the object of ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the real estate sector and providing an expeditious and effective mechanism for redressal of the grievances of allottees. However, in the present case, the very object and purpose of the Act has been frustrated by the builder, through the institution of various frivolous and vexatious litigation, apparently with a view to delay and evade the discharge of its statutory obligations and liabilities arising under the Act of 2016.”

Advocates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within 2 Years Of Provisional Enrolment Cannot Continue To Practise: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Yogendra vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 548

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 548

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that advocates who obtained their law degree in the academic session 2009-10 or thereafter and were provisionally enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh cannot continue to practise if they fail to qualify the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) within 2 years of their provisional enrolment.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said that such advocates would not be entitled to practise in "any court, any Tribunal or any other authority" if they fail to qualify the AIBE within the 2-year period.

Land Acquisition | Awards From Different Villages Can Be Relevant To Determine Compensation If Location Is Comparable: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/s Mahamaya General Finance Company Ltd. vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 549

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 549

The Allahabad High Court has held that even where the principle of 'same village and same notification' does not strictly apply, the location of the land dealt with in earlier judgments can be relevant consideration for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Court relied on two Supreme Court decisions on land in another village, acquired under earlier notifications, while fixing the market value here.

Salary Can't Be Denied On Objections To Compassionate Appointment So Long As Approval Order Subsists: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dharmwati Devi vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 550

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 550

The Allahabad High Court has held that where an order approving a compassionate appointment has never been withdrawn, recalled or annulled by a competent authority, the salary flowing from that appointment cannot be denied. It held that an administrative order which continues to operate in law cannot be defeated indirectly by refusing the benefits which follow from it.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held,

“An administrative order which continues to operate in the eyes of law cannot be rendered otiose by the simple expedient of refusing its consequential benefits. So long as the approval subsists, the respondents are estopped from questioning its efficacy indirectly while simultaneously declining the salary flowing therefrom.”

RBI Staff Regulations | Personal Dispute Can't Be Treated As Service Misconduct Without Nexus To Employment: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Reserve Bank of India Through its Assistant General Manager and another vs. Vijayanand Rai 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 551

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 551

The Allahabad High Court has held that an act of an employee arising out of a purely personal dispute cannot be treated as misconduct under Regulations 32, 34 and 47(1) of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 unless it has a nexus with the employment or affects the discipline, functioning or reputation of the employer.

Regulation 32 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 obliges every employee of the Bank to abide by the Regulations and obey the orders of those under whose control he is placed. Regulation 34 requires him to serve the Bank honestly and faithfully and to show courtesy and attention in dealings with officers of Government and the Bank's constituents.

Plea Of Res Judicata Need Not Be Decided At Threshold In Small Causes Suits: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Raju Kashyap and 2 others vs. Smt Archana Jain 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 552

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 552

The Allahabad High Court has held that a defendant in a suit before a Court of Small Causes cannot insist, as a matter of right, that his plea of res judicata be decided at the threshold. It held that whether such a plea is taken up first depends on the nature of the enquiry it calls for, and where it turns on disputed facts, it must be decided along with the rest of the suit.

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bars the trial of a matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties litigating under the same title, which has been finally decided by a competent court (principle of res judicata).

Caste Certificate | Rejection Put Up On Department Website Recording Only 'Lack Of Evidence' Is Not A 'Speaking Order': Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Alok Dhangar and another v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 553

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 553

The Allahabad High Court has held that the display of a rejection letter on the official website of the department, recording nothing beyond lack of evidence, is not a 'speaking order' and cannot sustain the rejection of an application for a caste certificate.

It added that an order which is not communicated to the person concerned does not become effective.

Further, it held that the duty to record reasons binds an administrative authority as much as a quasi-judicial one.

Child Adopted By Widow Can Inherit Her Deceased Husband's Property: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ram Kripal vs. J.D.C. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 554

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 554

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a son adopted by a widow after the death of her husband is to be treated as the adopted son of the deceased husband as well, and inherits the husband's share.

Following High Court's earlier judgment in Subhash Misir U/G of Sri Janardan Tewari Vs. Thagai Misir, Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held,

“This Court in the case reported in 1966 RD 255 Subhash Misir U/G of Sri Janardan Tewari Vs. Thagai Misir has held that the son adopted by widow after the death of husband will be treated to be adopted son of husband also”.

UP Govt Can't Cancel Teacher's Appointment After 29 Years Over Lack Of Qualification In Absence Of Fraud: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Devendra Kumar Agrawal vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 555

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 555

Allowing the appeal of a teacher whose qualification was questioned after 29 years of continuous service, the Allahabad High Court has held that the power to cancel an appointment under Section 16-E(10) of the Intermediate Education Act cannot be exercised at a belated stage.

The Court held that it was bound by the full bench decision of the High Court in Dr. Asha Saxena vs. Smt. S. K. Chaudhari and others, wherein exercise of the same power after a lapse of nearly 17 years was held to be arbitrary.

Adverse Entry For Specific Period Won't Bar Selection Grade Based On Subsequent Unblemished Service: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Viddya Dhar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 556

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 556

The Allahabad High Court has held that where an adverse entry against a government servant is confined to a specified period, the service he renders after that period counts towards the ten years of satisfactory service required for grant of selection grade. It further held that a selection grade falling due on the day immediately after superannuation remains admissible to him.

The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,

“The adverse remark as per order dated 04.12.2004 was for the specific period from 1977 to 1994-95, meaning thereby since 01.07.1995 till 30.06.2005, petitioner had rendered unblemished service of 10 years(from 1 july 1995 to 30 june 2005) and his increment/selection grade having been due on 01.07.2005 would be admissible to petitioner despite his superannuation on 30.06.2005”

Property Purchaser Can't Seek Enforcement Of Sale Deed After Failing To Deposit Balance Amount For 20 Years: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Duliram Maurya vs. Nandram 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 557

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 557

The Allahabad High Court has held that a property purchaser cannot seek enforcement of a sale deed after failing to deposit the balance sale consideration for 20 years.

In doing so the court quashed an order granting time to a purchaser, whose suit for specific performance was decreed, to deposit the balance sale amount after noting that he waited for 20 years to move the plea for extension of time to deposit the due amount.

Allahabad High Court Orders ₹25 Lakh Compensation For 2 Sisters Illegally Confined By Father After Conversion To Islam

Case title - Kunwar Sultan Ali & 2 Others vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 558

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 558

The Allahabad High Court ordered the father of two adult sisters and the Uttar Pradesh Government to jointly pay ₹25 lakh compensation after holding that the women were illegally confined at their parental home following their decision to convert from Hinduism to Islam.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain passed the order while allowing a habeas corpus petition concerning Diya Bhatia @ Zoya Diya Bhatia (20) and Anshu Bhatia @ Amina Anshu Bhatia (35).

Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs On Couple For Securing Interim Protection By Concealing Man's Existing Marriage

Case title - Kusum Maurya And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 559

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 559

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) imposed ₹1 lakh costs on a couple after finding that they had concealed the fact that the man was already married to secure interim protection from police harassment and coercive action.

Dismissing their petition, a bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani noted that the couple had moved the Court with a false affidavit and with material concealment and even secured interim protection earlier by "concealing the fact and playing fraud with the Court".

Denial Of Maintenance Forcing Wife Into Destitution Violates Her Right To Live With Dignity Under Article 21: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Devansh Alias Chhotu vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 560

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 560

The Allahabad High Court observed that denial of maintenance, forcing the wife into destitution, violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 21, which includes the right to live with dignity.

The Court added that the maintenance ensures that the wife is not compelled to lead a life of destitution for such deprivation would offend the dignity guaranteed under Article 21.

State Which Withdraws Special Appeal Is Bound By Findings Of Judgment It Challenged, Can't Re-Agitate Same Grounds: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Kamal Nayan Singh and 9 others v. State of UP and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 561

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 561

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the State gets its special appeal against a judgment dismissed as not pressed, it accepts the findings of that judgment and is barred from urging the same grounds again in later proceedings between the same parties.

It held that an administrative order rejecting a claim on grounds already turned down by the Court amounts to sitting in appeal over the Court's judgment, a jurisdiction the authority does not have.

'Hydroponic Weed' Is 'Ganja'; Growing Method Does Not Change Its Legal Status: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail In NDPS Case

Case title - Mohd Idrish vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 562

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 562

The Allahabad High Court has observed that "hydroponic weed" is 'cannabis' (Ganja) and that the method used to cultivate it does not alter its legal status under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal made this observation while granting bail to one Mohd Idrish, booked under the NDPS Act, in a case concerning the alleged recovery of 2 kg 300 grams of hydroponic weed from his conscious possession.

Bank Can Recover Loan Dues From Guarantor After Default Without First Proceeding Against Principal Borrower: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Vineet Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko. And 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 563

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 563

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a bank can recover loan dues from a guarantor after the principal borrower defaults without first exhausting its remedies against the principal borrower.

Referring to Section 128 Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Surety's liability), a bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary noted that the liability of the surety is 'coextensive' with that of the principal debtor, which means that the quantum of the guarantor's obligation is the same as that of the principal borrower.

LPG Distributor Has No Legitimate Expectation To Retain Customers It Enrols On Behalf Of Oil Companies: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Vikramaditya Gas Agencies vs. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 564

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 564

The Allahabad High Court has held that an LPG distributor has no legitimate expectation to retain customers on its rolls, as those customers are enrolled on behalf of the Oil Marketing Companies and not for the distributor itself.

Upholding the Policy on Customer Transfer-Market Restructuring dated 21^st Febraury 2025, the Court held that a distributor which has accepted the clauses of the Letter of Intent, the LPG Manual and the Distributorship Agreement permitting curtailment of its area of operation and customer base cannot assail the policy without challenging those clauses.

UP Secondary Education Act | Appointment Against Fraudulently Created Short-Term Vacancy Can't Be Regularised: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Subhash Chandra Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 565

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 565

The Allahabad High Court has held that Section 33-F of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 cannot be invoked to claim substantive appointment where the short term vacancy against which the teacher was appointed was itself fraudulently created.

Section 33-F provides for regularisation of appointments made against short term vacancies, entitling teachers appointed against such vacancies between May 14, 1991 and August 6, 1993, where the vacancy was later converted into a substantive one, to substantive appointment on satisfying the conditions it lays down. Sub-section (4) provides that a teacher not found suitable or not eligible shall cease to hold the appointment on such date as the State Government may specify by order.

Order VII Rule 11 CPC Not Available In UP Tenancy Act Proceedings; Objections Must Be Raised In Reply: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Jagdish Kumar Bansal v. Manish Agrawal and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 566

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 566

The Allahabad High Court has held that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or any analogous preliminary objection seeking termination of the proceedings at the threshold, cannot be entertained in proceedings under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.

Section 33 of the Tenancy Act provides that, save as otherwise provided in the Act, CPC shall not apply to proceedings before the Rent Authority or the Rent Tribunal. Section 34 confers on them certain specified powers of a civil court, such as summoning witnesses, discovery and production of documents and receiving evidence on affidavits.

Fair Compensation Act | State Can't Stay DM's Quasi-Judicial Order On Lapse Of Land Acquisition Without Statutory Power: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Kishan Lal Ahuja and another v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 567

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 567

The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of the District Magistrate deciding a claim of lapse of acquisition under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is quasi-judicial in character, and the State Government cannot stay or nullify it by an executive order. It held that Section 24 confers no power of review upon the State Government.

Land Acquisition Act 1894 | Award As Per Court's Direction Can't Be Agitated For Not Computing Market Value Under 2013 Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Vijai Kumar and 153 others v. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 568

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 568

The Allahabad High Court has held that an award made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in compliance with a judicial direction to frame it in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and another vs. State of U.P and another cannot be assailed on the ground that the market value ought to have been computed as on 01.01.2014, the date on which the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force.

UP Tenancy Act | Court Fee On Appeal Must Be Valued On Subject Matter In Dispute, Not Fee Paid Before Rent Authority: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Arif Khan vs. Smt Roshan Jahan 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 569

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 569

The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal preferred to the Rent Tribunal under Section 35 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 must be valued on the subject matter in dispute in appeal, and not on the court fee paid on the application originally instituted before the Rent Authority.

Where a composite decree of eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits is assailed in its entirety, the Court held, mesne profits which have accrued or can be worked out arithmetically by the date the appeal is presented form part of the decretal burden the appellant seeks to shed, and must be reckoned in the court fee.

Acceptance Of Final Report Doesn't Bar Further Investigation: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Anurag Dubey @ Dabban vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 570

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 570

The Allahabad High Court has held that acceptance of a final report by a Judicial Magistrate does not bar the investigating agency from carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made the observation while dismissing an application challenging an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, which had permitted further investigation in a nearly two-decade-old murder case.

Police Refusal To Register FIR On Woman's Digital Rape Complaint Against Employer: Allahabad High Court Orders Inquiry By UP DGP

Case title - Arpit Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571

The Allahabad High Court directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to inquire as to why Ghaziabad Police officials refused to register an FIR on a woman's complaint against her employer alleging sexual harassment, molestation, inducement and criminal intimidation.

A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena passed the direction while dismissing a petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the accused employer.

Prosecution's Failure To Produce Witnesses 'Indirectly' Helping Accused: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail In PFI 'Terror Plot' Case

Case title - Ansad Badruddin And Another vs Anti Terrorist Squad Thru. Its Adg/Sp 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 572

Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 572

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to two accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) in a case alleging a conspiracy to attack Hindu religious organisations and sensitive places in Uttar Pradesh, observing that the trial had made "very poor" progress despite repeated directions for its expeditious conclusion.

A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra noted that the appellants had been in jail since February 17, 2021, but till now, only 5 of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined.

Burden On State To Prove Land Is Irrigated Before Declaring It Surplus Under Ceiling Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Babu Lal v. Prescribed Authority Ceilling Unnao And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 573

Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 573

The Allahabad High Court has held that a finding that a tenure-holder's land is irrigated for the purposes of Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 must rest upon the Khasra entries of Fasli years 1378, 1379 and 1380, and where the State fails to produce those records, a declaration of surplus land founded on such a finding is a finding based on no evidence.

Section 4-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 provides for determination of irrigated land. It turns on whether irrigation facilities existed and whether the land was capable of yielding two crops in the relevant agricultural years.

Conflicting Time Limits In E-Auction Catalogue Must Be Harmonised To Uphold Transaction, Not Void It: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Chandra Fabrics Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 574

Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 574

The Allahabad High Court has held that where two conditions of an e-auction catalogue prescribe conflicting time limits for payment by the highest bidder, they must be interpreted harmoniously in a manner which upholds the transaction rather than voids it.

The dispute turned on two conditions of the catalogue issued by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA) for allotment of plots through e-auction. Its date chart fixed 19.03.2021 for intimation to the H1 bidder and 24.03.2021 as the last date for payment of balance earnest money, stating that dates were to be calculated excluding Saturdays and Sundays. Condition 2(c)(iii) of the post-auction stage separately allowed the H1 bidder 7 days from receipt of the intimation email to allocate the balance amount.

Commercial Auction | Buyer Must Inspect Site Before Bidding; Can't Later Object Over Location Or Construction Impediments: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Swastik Ventures Pvt. Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 575

Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 575

The Allahabad High Court has held that an investor must be conscious of entire transaction when a commercial plot is bought on “as is where is” basis. It held that physical verification of the site is reasonably expected of a prudent person when plot is being bought through auction.

Teacher-Student Ratio Norms Under RTE Act Can't Be Invoked To Challenge Teachers' Transfer Policy: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Rishi Katiyar and 3 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 576

Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 576

The Allahabad High Court has held that teachers have no inherent right of transfer under any statute, and that such rights as they have in the matter arise only from the transfer policy itself.

It held that a district-wise Pupil-Teacher-Ratio (PTR) list prepared by the State only to work its policy for inter-district transfer of basic school teachers has nothing to do with the mandate of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and cannot be tested against the Schedule to that Act.

Taunting Wife As 'Barren Woman' During Matrimonial Quarrel Not Cruelty U/S 498-A IPC: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To Husband

Case title - Hirendra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 577

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 577

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a husband's alleged reference to his wife as a "barren woman" (infertile), in the backdrop of a matrimonial quarrel over childlessness and exchange of abuses between the spouses, did not by itself constitute cruelty under Section 498-A IPC.

A bench of Justice Indrajeet Shukla thus allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC and quashed criminal proceedings against a man who had been summoned for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Cyber Fraud | Allahabad High Court Directs Banks To Follow MHA SOP For Frozen Accounts; Says Lien Can't Extend Beyond Disputed Amount

Case title - Ritesh Yadav vs. Reserve Bank Of India New Delhi Thru. Its Governor And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 578

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 578

The Allahabad High Court has directed banks and financial institutions to follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for grievance redressal in cases where bank accounts are frozen or seized in connection with cyber fraud.

The Court also reiterated that where an investigating agency has identified a specific disputed amount, a lien cannot extend beyond that amount in the absence of material showing that the remaining funds are also connected with the alleged offence.

State Can't Implement Central Scheme Selectively By Ignoring Pay Parity Clause: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mr. Vipin Mishra and 23 Ors. v. Union of India Through Secy. Ministry of Human Resource Deve 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 579

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 579

The Allahabad High Court has held that a State which adopts a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, takes financial assistance under it and recruits employees solely to implement it cannot enforce only those parts of the Scheme which are administratively convenient while ignoring those which confer corresponding benefits on the employees so recruited.

Clause 12.3 of the Integrated Education for Disabled Children (IEDC) Scheme, a Centrally Sponsored Scheme framed to bring children with disabilities into ordinary schools, provides that Special Teachers appointed under the Scheme will be given the same scales of pay as are available to teachers of the corresponding category in that State or Union Territory, besides a special pay on account of the nature of their duties.

Income Tax Act | 18-Month Period To Decide Settlement Application Under S.245D(4A) Is Mandatory, Not Directory: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/s B.L. Agro Industries Limited, Bareilly Thru. Mr. Amit Kumar Authorised Signatory v. Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Govt. of India New Delhi Thru. Secy. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 580

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 580

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that the period of 18 months prescribed under Section 245D(4A)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for disposal of a settlement application is mandatory and not directory in nature. It quashed an order of the Interim Board for Settlement passed after that period had expired.

Section 245D(4A)(iii) of the Income Tax Act requires an order under Section 245D(4) to be passed within eighteen months from the end of the month in which the application was made, in respect of applications made on or after June 1, 2010.

Where Idol Was Never Installed, No Juristic Person Came Into Existence; Devotion Alone Gives No Locus To Sue For Deity: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Murti Shri Ram Chandra Ji Virajman And 6 Others v. Ashish and 19 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 581

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 581

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a deed of gift stipulates only that an idol will be installed on the property in future and no idol is ever consecrated or installed, no juristic person comes into existence in whom the property can vest, and persons professing devotion to the deity have no locus standi to sue on its behalf.

Justice Anil Kumar-X held,

“However, the plaintiffs themselves have admitted in the plaint that no idol of Lord Sri Ramchandra was ever consecrated or installed over the disputed property pursuant to the said gift deed. Thus, the very event upon which the alleged endowment was founded never came into existence. In the absence of installation and consecration of the idol, there was no juristic person in whom the property could vest or on whose behalf the present suit could be instituted.”

'Publicity Interest Litigation': Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Over Alleged Forced Closure Of Non-Veg Shops During Kanwar Yatra

Case Title: Nasir Farooq vs State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 582

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 582

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea alleging that shopkeepers dealing in non-vegetarian food were being compelled or harassed to close their shops during the Kanwar Yatra, observing that the petition appeared to be aimed at 'publicity' rather than public interest.

A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra found that the petition did not disclose the names of the shopkeepers allegedly served with closure notices and failed to establish an actual cause.

Allottee Who Knowingly Took Lease Of Lesser Area Can't Claim Benefit Of Zero Period In Entirety: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority vs. Ms Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 583

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 583

The Allahabad High Court has held that a developer who took a lease of a smaller, scattered part of the land allotted to it, knowing the balance was not in the development authority's possession, cannot claim the benefit of “zero period” in its entirety, even where the authority was itself in default.

Zero period is a concession granted to allottees of stalled group housing projects under successive Government Orders. For the period declared zero, interest and penal interest are not charged and the instalments are shifted forward. Under the Government Order dated 05.12.2019, where more than 30% of the allotted land is affected, it is available for 100% of the land.

Zamindari Abolition Act | Land Claims Must Be Decided On Entire Chain Of Revenue Records, Not Isolated Entry: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Kanti Kumar v. Board of Revenue and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 584

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 584

The Allahabad High Court has held that a claim under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 has to be decided on the entire chain of revenue records. It held that a finding returned by isolating a single entry while leaving out continuous Khatauni entries running across several Faslis is perverse in law and cannot be sustained.

Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 provides a person claiming asami or holding over land or part of land with a right to file a declaratory suit against the landholder.

Allahabad High Court Orders 30% Women's Reservation In Oudh Bar Association; President's Post Reserved From 2028 On Rotation Basis

Case title - Divya Tripathi @ Divya Mishra vs The Bar Council of Uttar Paradesh and others Thru. its Secy. Lko. and 2 others and a connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 585

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 585

The Allahabad High Court directed that 30% of the posts in the Governing/Executive Council of the Oudh Bar Association, High Court, Lucknow, be reserved for women.

The High Court has also laid down a post-wise reservation and rotation schedule, with the President's post to be reserved for women from 2028 onwards every 3 years.

A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the directions while dealing with two PIL pleas concerning reservation for women advocates in the Oudh Bar Association.

Petrol Pump Owner Has No Locus To Challenge Approval To Rival Outlet Merely Due To Business Competition: Allahabad High Court

Case title - M/s D.K.Automobiles Thru. Sole Proprietor Smt.Shradha Agarwal and another vs Union of India,Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas New Delhi and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 586

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 586

The Allahabad High Court has held that an existing petrol pump owner has no locus to challenge the approval or No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to a rival petrol outlet merely because the establishment of the new outlet may adversely affect the financial health of his business.

A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by the proprietor of an existing petrol pump at Bahraich, who had challenged the approval and NOC granted for the establishment of another petrol outlet in its vicinity.

Promotion Doesn't Wash Out Past Adverse Entries, Full Service Record Relevant For Compulsory Retirement: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mohd. Jamil Warsi vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Thru C.J. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 587

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 587

The Allahabad High Court has held that the promotion of a government servant does not wipe out the adverse entries earned by him before the promotion when his case is taken up for compulsory retirement. It held that the entire service record must be looked at in such an assessment, and that even one entry touching integrity can be enough to retire an employee compulsorily.

Article 161 | Governor's Power To Grant Premature Release Cannot Be Exercised Arbitrarily: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Ram Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 588

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 588

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the power of the Governor to grant premature release under Article 161 of the Constitution of India is a sovereign executive power, but it cannot be exercised arbitrarily, as it remains regulated by the applicable Rules and remission policy.

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena made this observation while quashing an order refusing premature release to a convict who had been sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment.

Employee Can't Be Called Upon To Prove Adverse Remarks Were Never Communicated; Burden Is On Department: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 589

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 589

The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee who says the adverse entries in his confidential reports were never communicated to him cannot be called upon to prove that negative. It held that it is for the department to demonstrate that communication was in fact made.

The bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh held,

“It will appear from above the Tribunal found omission on part of petitioner to demonstrate that he had not been communicated the adverse entries. The Tribunal appears to have lost sight that a fact can be proved, while the negative cannot. It was up to the department to demonstrate communication. Petitioner saying he had not been communicated the adverse entries of many years, could not be called upon to prove the negative. The Tribunal obviously erred in review of its earlier judgment based on the adverse entries, where the department had not resisted the case.”

Excess Salary Paid Due To Employer's Error 17 Years Ago Can't Be Recovered From Retiral Dues: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Brijesh Singh Dagar vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 590

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 590

The Allahabad High Court has held that excess salary paid to a Class-III employee because of the employer's own faulty pay fixation cannot be recovered from his post-retiral dues where the mistake is corrected 17 years later and the employee is not shown to have brought it about.

Directing refund of Rs. 11,51,840/- deducted from the retiral dues of a retired Head Constable (Driver), with 7% simple interest, Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held,

“In the present case, it has not been denied by the respondents that the petitioner was not responsible in any manner for alleged wrongful pay fixation. In the present case, according to the respondents, the wrong fixation of the salary of the petitioner was done in the year 2008, which has been sought to be corrected in the year 2025, after lapse of 17 years.”

Teacher Appointed Without Sanctioned Post, Qualification Can Claim Salary Only From Management Committee That Appointed Him: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 591

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 591

The Allahabad High Court has held that a teacher appointed by a Committee of Management without prior approval of the post and without the qualification prescribed for it can only claim his salary from the Committee of Management which appointed him.

Petitioner was appointed by the Committee of Management on 23^rd November 1999, when he held the degree of 'Shiksha Alankar'. Unpaid, he moved the High Court in 2000 and obtained an interim order, and the State's special appeal against it was dismissed in 2009. After a post of Assistant Teacher fell vacant on 30^th June 2010, the Committee requisitioned a teacher in the Hindi subject.

Mere Claim Of Ownership Of Suit Property Doesn't Make Third Party A Necessary Party In Small Causes Suit: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Manish Bansal vs. Jagdish Prasad Mittal and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 592

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 592

The Allahabad High Court has held that third party claiming independent title doesn't become necessary or proper party merely by asserting it in a small causes suit. It held that such a person can be brought on record only where his title has to be decided before the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief claimed can be determined.

Order I Rule 10 CPC governs the addition of parties to a suit. Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 provides for return of the plaint where the plaintiff's right and the relief he claims depend on proof or disproof of a title the Small Causes Court cannot finally decide.

Typing Speed Is Minimum Eligibility Condition For Promotion As Junior Assistant, Can Be Tested Before Written Exam: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ashok Kumar And 7 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Karmik Anubhag And 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 593

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 593

The Allahabad High Court has held that testing minimum eligibility condition for promotion prior to promotion to the post of Junior Assistant before written test is conducted is valid.

It held that after the enforcement of the U.P. Government Departmental Ministerial Cadre Service Rules, 2014, a minimum typing speed is an eligibility condition for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, and the typing test may therefore be held before the written test and interview prescribed by Rule 8(2) of the U.P. Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group 'C' Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001.

Allahabad High Court Slams UP Govt For Acquiring Land For Ayodhya Ram Mandir Without Paying Agreed Price

Case Title: Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, Thru. Sarvarahkar Swami Vishvesh Prapannacharya v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 594

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 594

The Allahabad High Court has slammed the Uttar Pradesh government for acquiring Shri Thakur Ram Jankiji diety's land at 'Sugriv Kila' in Ayodha for development of Shri Ram Janma Bhoomi Temple, without paying sale price.

The Court noted that the State was simultaneously questioning the deity's title and claiming that the land could not have been sold in the first place.

Section 47 CPC | Execution Proceedings Cannot Reopen Issues That Could Have Been Raised At Trial: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Ravi Srivastava vs Ajay Sharma 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 595

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 595

The Allahabad High Court has observed that objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) cannot be used to reopen issues that could have been raised and decided during the original trial, unless the judgment-debtor is able to establish that the decree is void and inexecutable on the face of it.

A bench of Justice Anil Kumar-X made the observation while dismissing a civil revision filed by a judgment-debtor challenging the rejection of his objections to the execution of an eviction decree.

Recovery Of Allegedly Stolen 'Blanket, Mosquito Net' Not Enough To Prove Guilt: Allahabad High Court Acquits 2 In 1978 Robbery Case

Case Title - Chhotey And Another vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 596

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 596

The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted two men in connection with a 1978 robbery case, observing that the alleged recovery of a blanket and mosquito net from them did not furnish strong corroborative evidence, particularly since the articles were readily available in the market and bore no distinctive identifying marks.

The Court also found deficiencies in the identification evidence, including the delayed conduct of the test identification parade and the non-production of the torch allegedly used by witnesses to identify the accused.

S.21 NIA Act | Order Framing Charges Is Not Interlocutory, Appeal Lies Before HC: Allahabad High Court Differs With Delhi HC View

Case title - Satendra Siwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 597

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 597

The Allahabad High Court has held that an order framing charges passed by a Special Court under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) is not an interlocutory order and can therefore be challenged by way of an appeal before the High Court under Section 21 of the 2008 Act.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi thus differed with the view of the Delhi High Court in the case of Shahid Yousuf v. NIA, wherein it was held that the order framing charges is interlocutory in nature and cannot be challenged in appeal under Section 21 of the 2008 Act.

Police Officer Can Face Disciplinary Proceedings Despite Pending Criminal Case Over Same Incident: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ex. Sub Inspector C.P. Pno-792590505 Deshraj Tyagi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 598

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 598

The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings against a police officer are not barred merely because an F.I.R. has been lodged over the same incident, as Paragraph 489 of the U.P. Police Regulations permits a departmental trial whether or not the officer has been tried judicially.

It held that the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 cover the subject matter of Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, and any provision of the Regulations contrary to those Rules stands superseded. It held that the Rules, 1991 were framed under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 46 read with Sections 2 and 7 of the Police Act, 1861, superseding all earlier rules on the subject.

Allahabad High Court Deprecates State's Failure To Pay Counsel's Fees, But Rejects ₹4.8 Crore Writ Claim As Not Maintainable

Case Title: Jyotinjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 599

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 599

The Allahabad High Court has deprecated the State's failure to pay professional fees to counsel engaged to defend its cases, observing that such non-payment could constrain advocates to approach the courts.

However, while dismissing an advocate's four writ petitions seeking recovery of about ₹4.8 crore as not maintainable, the Court held that disputed claims for professional fees arising from a contractual engagement cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

Authorities Cannot Deny Salary Citing Absence Of Their Nominee From Selection Committee: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mahendra Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Basic Education U.P.Civil Sectt.And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 600

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 600

The Allahabad High Court has held that the failure of the District Basic Education Officer to send his nominee to a selection committee under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group D Employees) Rules, 1984 does not vitiate the selection held in his absence. It held that salary cannot be withheld from the candidate so selected on that ground alone.

Long Service, Subsequent Recognition Can't Validate Invalid Appointment; No Right To Salary From Public Funds: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ved Pati Tripathi and 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and 4 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 601

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 601

The Allahabad High Court has held that a teacher of an aided institution cannot claim salary from the State exchequer merely on the strength of long continuance in service or subsequent administrative recognition, where the competent University had declined approval to the appointment and had directed a fresh selection which was never held.

The Court held that before a mandamus for payment of public money can be issued, the person claiming salary must first establish the existence and legality of the appointment from which the right is said to flow.

Brothel Customer Can't Be Prosecuted Under Immoral Traffic Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Nitin vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 602

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 602

The Allahabad High Court has held that a man who visits a brothel as a customer cannot be prosecuted under Sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, as paying money for personal gratification is not procurement for the purpose of prostitution within the meaning of the Act.

Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary held,

“If a person visits a brothel as a customer, then at the most, he may be procuring a prostitute to satisfy his personal lust, but not for the 'purpose of prostitution' as defined under the Act (which requires commercia exploitation). Therefore, a customer who pays money for gratification cannot be prosecuted under Section 3, 5, or 7 of the Act.”

Reliable Dying Declaration Can Form Basis For Acquittal Too: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Amita Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. with Shivraj Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 603

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 603

The Allahabad High Court has held that a dying declaration which is reliable enough to sustain a conviction can equally form the basis of an acquittal, the standard of proof for an acquittal being merely preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court was hearing appeals by a husband and his mother against their conviction for cruelty and dowry death, in a case where the deceased had told a Magistrate, within two hours of the incident, that her burns were accidental.

Calling By Caste Name Without Intent To Humiliate Doesn't Attract SC/ST Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Vegraj Singh And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 604

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 604

The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere use of the word “Chamar”, without material showing that it was used with the intention or knowledge of insulting the victim on the ground of her caste, does not prima facie disclose the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and cannot sustain an order summoning a person to face trial under Section 319 CrPC.

'Lis Pendens Applies To Involuntary Alienations'; Court Auction Sale Also Subject To Outcome Of Pending Suit: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Chhajju Ram vs. Babu Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 605

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 605

The Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of lis pendens applies even to a court auction sale, an involuntary alienation, and the auction purchaser takes the property subject to the outcome of a suit already pending over it.

The Court clarified that notice of the prior claim or agreement is not the basis for applying the doctrine; it operates because of the pendency of the litigation itself.

Allahabad High Court Acquits Husband Accused Of Setting Wife Ablaze, Rejects Dying Declaration Recorded In Presence Of Relatives

Case Title - Jagan vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 606

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 606

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday acquitted a man convicted of culpable homicide in connection with the burning death of his wife, observing that the dying declaration was recorded in the presence of relatives/family members and therefore could not be safely relied upon.

A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev allowed the criminal appeal filed by Jagan against the judgment of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Moradabad, which had convicted him under Section 304 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Common Intention | S.34 IPC Attracted Where Co-Accused's Participation Has 'Functional Relationship' With Offence: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Asgar and others vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 607

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 607

The Allahabad High Court has observed that to attract 'common intention' liability under Section 34 IPC, the participation of a co-accused must have a "functional relationship with the offense in question".

The bench clarified that the mere fact that several persons participated in the same occurrence does not make each of them liable for every offence committed during it.

A Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Padam Narain Mishra made this observation while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by an accused who was convicted of murder with the aid of Section 34 in connection with a 1985 case.

'Malicious' Prosecution: Why Allahabad High Court Quashed Judicial Officer's FIR Alleging Doctor-Wife Demanded ₹1 Crore For Divorce

Case title - SR and two others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 608

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 608

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed an FIR lodged by a Judicial Official of the State against his doctor-wife and two others after finding that the criminal proceedings were "not bona fide but malicious and also an abuse of the process of Court".

A Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II allowed a writ petition filed by the wife and two others while setting aside the FIR lodged by a Judicial Officer in January this year.

S.149 IPC | Mere Presence Or Nomination In FIR Cannot Sustain Conviction Without Proof Of Unlawful Assembly, Common Object: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Suresh and 7 others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 609

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 609

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted two accused in a nearly 4-decade-old murder case while observing that mere nomination in the FIR could not sustain their conviction under Section 149 IPC when the prosecution had failed to establish the existence of an unlawful assembly or its common object.

In fact, the Court found that no specific role or weapon was attributed to the two accused and the Prosecution failed to establish that the accused were part of the alleged Unlawful Assembly or shared a Common Object.

Accused On Bail Shown As In Jail, Gang Chart Approved Without Joint Meeting: Allahabad High Court Quashes UP Gangsters Act FIR

Case title - Devendra Pratap Singh alias Rahul Farji and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 610

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 610

The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, after noting that the mandatory joint meeting was not held and incorrect entries were made showing accused persons as being in jail despite the fact that they had been granted bail.

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena thus allowed 4 connected writ petitions challenging the same FIR registered at a Police Station in Prayagraj, under Section 2/3(1) of the UP Gangsters Act.

POCSO Misuse | Allahabad High Court Flags Use Of Forged School Certificates To Show Victims As Minors, Seeks UP Govt Guidelines

Case title - Shivam Yadav @ Chhotu vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 611

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 611

The Allahabad High Court flagged what it described as the "clear misuse of the POCSO Act" by the parents of the victims who submit forged school certificates to show the victims as below 18 years of age.

The Court noted that this practice results in the false implication of several young boys who find it difficult to obtain bail and are easily convicted in view of the presumption provided under the POCSO Act.

Termination Of Bank Employee Under Regulation Retrospectively Declared Unconstitutional Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sachindra Kumar Pandey vs Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 612

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 612

The Allahabad High Court has held that the termination of a bank employee under a regulation enacted after the Constitution of India but declared as unconstitutional, has retrospective effect and thus such termination cannot stand and would be illegal.

In doing so the court reiterated that the situation is different in case of a law enacted prior to the Constitution which is only eclipsed by its conflict with Part III and may be revived if the fundamental right it offended is amended or authoritatively read differently.

Attempt To Influence & Intimidate Judge Over Call? Allahabad High Court Refers Senior IAS Officer's Conduct For Criminal Contempt

Case title - Jyoti Vidya Mandir Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar Thru Manager Dayanand Mishra vs Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda through its Its President And others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 613

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 613

The Allahabad High Court has referred the conduct of senior IAS officer and Devi Patan Mandal Commissioner Durga Shakti Nagpal to the court dealing with criminal contempt matters after a Judicial Officer alleged that the Commissioner attempted to influence and intimidate her over a phone call in connection with a pending civil suit.

A Bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that the tone and language of the alleged telephonic conversation gave a "direct impression that the Presiding Officer of the Court was tried to be influenced".

Allahabad High Court Orders Judicial Inquiry Into Man's Death In STF Custody After Post-Mortem Finds Antemortem Injuries

Case title - Jhanvi Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 614

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 614

The Allahabad High Court directed a judicial inquiry into the death of a person who allegedly died while in the custody of the Special Task Force (STF), after noting that the post-mortem report recorded antemortem injuries on the deceased.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra passed the order while hearing a petition seeking transfer of the investigation into the case to the CBI or another independent agency for a fair and expeditious investigation.

Accused On Interim Bail Cannot Be Arrested Merely Because New Offences Are Added: Allahabad High Court Orders Inquiry Against Cop

Case title - Durgesh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615

The Allahabad High Court has observed that an accused who is already on interim bail in a case cannot be arrested merely because additional offences have been added during the course of investigation, without the police first approaching the concerned court for appropriate orders.

A Bench of Justice Samit Gopal termed the arrest of an accused, while on interim bail, booked under various provisions of BNS and the SC/ST Act as 'arbitrary'. The Court also directed an inquiry into the conduct of the concerned police officer(s).

Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Key Provisions Of UP's 2021 Tenancy Act; 1972 Rent Law Revives To Extent Required

Case title - Inder Bhushan Sawhney vs. Kanchan Kumari Jain (Dead) and 2 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615 and connected matters

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615

In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court struck down key provisions of the UP Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, holding that its provisions on rent revision, rent determination and eviction are repugnant to existing Parliamentary law.

A Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held that Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the 2021 Act, along with provisions providing for eviction by order of the Rent Authority, are repugnant to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).

'Disheartening': Allahabad High Court Laments Lapses In POCSO Case As 8 Y/O Victim Shuttled Between Hospitals, Evidence Mishandled

Case title - Jitendra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 617

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 617

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) expressed serious concern over multiple lapses in the medical examination and preservation of forensic evidence concerning an 8-year-old POCSO victim.

The Court described the situation as "deeply disheartening" as it remarked that the lapses represented a “serious failure” in handling vital evidence involving a minor victim.

Hijab Not Essential Part Of Islamic Faith: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Muslim Girl's Plea To Wear It With School Uniform

Case title - Sukaina Rizvi vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 618

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 618

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a minor Muslim student's plea seeking permission to wear a Hijab (headscarf) with her school uniform, observing that the petitioner had failed to place sufficient material to establish that wearing a headscarf was an essential religious practice of the Islamic faith.

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla also held that a student cannot insist upon modifying a prescribed dress code where it is "uniform, bona fide, nondiscriminatory and intended to maintain discipline and institutional identity".

Allahabad High Court Doubts Narrative Of Police Encounter, Orders CBI Probe

Case Title: Chotkau Alias Allauddin v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 619

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 619

The Allahabad High Court has questioned a recurring pattern in police encounter cases where police personnel allegedly escape unhurt while a single shot fired by the police ends up hitting the accused in the knee or below.

The Court made the observation while finding serious doubts in the prosecution's account of an alleged police encounter involving an accused who was shot in both legs.

Debarring A Firm In Perpetuity Contrary To Supreme Court Rulings, 'Flagrant Disregard' Of Article 144: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Aarambh Agro Purposes Co-Operative Society Ltd and another v. State of U.P. and 13 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 620

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 620

The Allahabad High Court has held that State authorities who blacklist a firm for an indefinite period in the teeth of the law laid down by the Supreme Court act in flagrant disregard of the constitutional mandate under Article 144 of the Constitution.

Article 144 provides that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. The Court held that the law authoritatively declared by the Supreme Court is, by virtue of that mandate, binding on the State and its officials

Father Can't Be Denied Custody Of Minor Daughter Unless Shown Unfit To Be Her Guardian: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: A v. K 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 621

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 621

The Allahabad High Court has held that a father, being the natural guardian of his minor daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, cannot be denied her custody unless he is shown to be unfit to be her guardian.

The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan held,

“In view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father has a paramount right to the custody of the children, he cannot be deprived of the custody of the minor child unless it is shown that he is unfit to be her guardian.”

Interim Protection Can Be Granted To Tenant Even Before Delay In Appeal Against Eviction Is Condoned: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Neelabh Gupta vs. Purshottam Das Gupta And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 622

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 622

The Allahabad High Court has held that an appellate court does not lose its power to grant interim protection in an appeal merely because the application for condonation of delay filed with that appeal is still undecided. An order preserving the subject matter of a proposed appeal, it held, stands apart from an order entertaining or deciding it.

Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,

“The mere pendency of an application seeking condonation of delay does not, by itself, denude the Appellate Court of the power to pass an appropriate protective order where the circumstances warrant preservation of the subject matter of the proposed appeal.”

Clarificatory Circular Issued After Complaint But Before Decision Governs Pending Public Tender Complaint: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ranjana Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 623

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 623

The Allahabad High Court has held that a clarificatory circular which comes into force after a complaint against a co-bidder is lodged, but before that complaint is finally decided, ordinarily governs the pending complaint.

It held that such a circular would not apply only where it unsettles a right that has already crystallised, or where it is shown to have been framed to defeat an identified complaint.

Setting Aside Of Quasi-Judicial Order Can't By Itself Lead To Disciplinary Action Against Officer Who Passed It: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Meisheng Chiang @ Chiang Mei Sheng vs. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Deptt. Of Personnel And Training New Delhi And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 624

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 624

The Allahabad High Court has held that the setting aside of a quasi-judicial order by a writ court does not by itself justify disciplinary proceedings against the officer who passed it under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. Such proceedings can be directed only where clear, cogent and verifiable facts establish misconduct.

The bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,

“We find that in case in any successful writ petition where an order of authority below is set aside it cannot ipso facto result in initiation of disciplinary proceedings merely because the authority concerned has passed an order which was contrary to law, in violation of principles of natural justice or had any other legal infirmities.”

CBSE, CISCE Schools In UP Not Exempt From RTE Obligations: Allahabad High Court Seeks 5-Yr Data On Denied Admissions, Fee Complaints

Case Title: St. John S School, Babhanauti, Pachwal vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 625

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 625

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that private schools in Uttar Pradesh affiliated with the CBSE or CISCE are not exempt from the mandate of the RTE Act 2009, which makes education a fundamental right for every child aged 6 to 14 years under Article 21A of the Indian Constitution.

The Court directed the State Government to furnish five-year, school-wise data on RTE admissions, including details of children whose admissions were declined or not effected and complaints alleging capitation fee or prohibited screening procedures.

Party-In-Person Uses 'Contemptuous' Language Against Judge In Petition, Allahabad High Court Registers Criminal Contempt Case

Case title - Vishram Singh vs. Rajya Uttar Pradesh and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 626

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 626

The Allahabad High Court has directed the registration of a criminal contempt case against a man after finding that he filed a review petition in the capacity of a party-in-person containing 'contemptuous' language against a sitting Judge of the High Court.

A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra passed the direction while considering a review petition filed against the Bench's earlier order dated July 9, 2026, by which a special appeal filed (against Single Judge's order) by the petitioner had been dismissed as not maintainable.

Body Found In Pieces Doesn't Establish Self-Inflicted Injury Or Other Exceptions To Deny Railway Compensation: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Lali v. Union Of India Through General Manager North Central Railway 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 627

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 627

The Allahabad High Court has held that the recovery of a passenger's body in several pieces cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the death fell within the exceptions to Section 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. It held that the Railways must establish those exceptions by leading cogent and substantial evidence.

Section 123(c)(2) of the Act defines 'untoward incident' to include the accidental falling of any passenger from a train carrying passengers. Section 124-A makes the railway administration liable to compensate for such a death whether or not it was at fault, subject only to the exceptions in the proviso.

Juvenile Sent To Judicial Custody In 5-Yr Offence: Allahabad High Court Warns Police, Magistrates Against Careless Arrest, Remand

Case title - Durgesh Thru. His Stepsister Mrs. Rubi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 628

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 628

The Allahabad High Court has once again cautioned police authorities and Judicial Officers against a "careless or callous approach" in matters of arrest and remand where the offence carries a maximum punishment of up to 7 years.

The Court's observation was in relation to a habeas corpus plea concerning a juvenile who was repeatedly sent to judicial custody in a case where the maximum punishment was 3 years and, after the addition of another provision, 5 years.

Noida Workers' Protest | Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To 'Mazdoor Bigul Dasta' Member In 2 FIRs

Case title - Himanshu Thakur vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 629

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 629

The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to Himanshu Thakur, a member of the workers' union 'Mazdoor Bigul Dasta', in connection with two FIRs arising from the April 2026 industrial workers' protest in Noida.

Both FIRs, Case Crime Nos. 164 and 165 of 2026, concerned alleged mob violence at public places and companies in Gautam Buddha Nagar/Noida, where a large number of workers had allegedly gathered, engaged in stone-pelting and damaged public and company property.

Lucknow Fire Tragedy | Allahabad High Court Rejects Building Owner's Writ Petition Against Demolition Order

Case title - Birendra Prasad Shukla ,Thru. Power Of Attorney Holder Rajendra Prasad Shukla vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning, Lko And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 630

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 630

The Allahabad High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by the owner of a building in Lucknow's Aliganj area where a devastating fire claimed 15 lives in June this year, challenging the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA)'s demolition order as well as the subsequent demolition action.

The Court, however, permitted the petitioner, Birendra Prasad Shukla (62), the co-owner of the building, to avail the statutory remedy of appeal available under the law.

'Pugilistic, Boxer-Like' Position Of Dead Body Alone Does Not Establish Ante-Mortem Burns: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Ashok Kumar vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 631

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 631

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the 'pugilistic' or 'boxer-like' position of a burnt dead body, by itself, does not establish that the burns were sustained ante-mortem.

The Court said that such a posture of the dead body is a heat artifact which can occur no matter whether a person was alive or already dead when the burning began.

A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by a man against his 1990 conviction for the death of his wife, who suffered extensive burns inside her matrimonial home in 1986.

Allahabad High Court Directs Inquiry Into Summons, Warrants Discrepancy Between Court Order-Sheets, Police Records

Case title - Mahendra Kumar Dubey vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 632

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 632

The Allahabad High Court has directed a preliminary inquiry into discrepancies concerning the issuance, transmission and execution of summons, bailable warrants and non-bailable warrants, after finding a mismatch between the processes reflected in the trial court's order-sheets and those actually received by the police pertaining to a Criminal Case in Kanpur.

The Court observed that such discrepancies not only affect the rights of accused persons but also raise serious questions regarding the "maintenance and sanctity of the judicial record".

Sultanpur Bar Association Elections: Allahabad High Court Orders 30% Reservation For Women, Sets Rotation For Key Posts

Case title - Shashi Mishra vs. Bar Council Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 633

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 633

The Allahabad High Court directed the Sultanpur Bar Association to implement a 30% reservation for women advocates in its Executive Committee and Governing Council. The Court ordered that key posts will be reserved for women candidates on a rotational basis in successive elections.

A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the directions in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea concerning compliance with the Supreme Court's recent directions in Deeksha N. Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka regarding representation of women advocates in Bar Associations.

S. 313 CrPC | No Adverse Inference Against Accused For Failing To Explain Circumstance Not Put To Him: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Mohd Kamil Alias Guddu and another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 634

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 634

The Allahabad High Court has observed that no adverse inference could be drawn against an accused for failing to explain a circumstance or piece of evidence on which he was not questioned by the trial Court under Section 313 CrPC.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while allowing 2 connected criminal appeals and acquitting 3 accused who had been convicted under Section 307 IPC in a 2006 attempt-to-murder case.

S. 396 IPC | Prosecution Must Establish Dacoity Was First Intention, Murder Committed In Its Course: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Krishna Pal and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 635

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 635

The Allahabad High Court has held that to sustain a conviction under Section 396 IPC (dacoity with murder), the prosecution must establish that dacoity was the first intention and that the murder was committed in the course of committing the dacoity.

A bench of Justice Samit Gopal made the observation while allowing a criminal appeal and acquitting the surviving accused in a 1981 case. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary nexus between the alleged dacoity and murder.

S. 304-B IPC | No Proof Of Harassment For Dowry 'Soon Before' Death: Allahabad High Court Acquits Three In 35-Year-Old Case

Case Title - Shiv Narain @ Surya Narain vs. State of U.P. and connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 636

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 636

The Allahabad High Court has held that to sustain a conviction under Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution must prove that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry "soon before" her death.

A bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj made the observation while allowing 3 criminal appeals arising from the death of a woman in September 1991.

Allahabad High Court Finds PIL Petitioner Concealed Earlier Litigation, Made 'False' Declaration; Imposes ₹2L Costs

Case title - Shailesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (B) 637

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 637

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging a 2015 tender awarded to a private company for the operation of a municipal slaughterhouse, finding that the petitioner had concealed several previous proceedings concerning the same subject matter and had made a false declaration that no earlier PIL or writ petition had been filed.

A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held that the petition amounted to a “gross misuse and abuse of process of law” and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on the petitioner.

NOMINAL INDEX

Akhilesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 505

Vinay Pratap Singh @ Bablu vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 506

Biswajit Chowdhury vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 507

Anup Kumar Shrivastava vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 508

Anupam Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 509

Aatish Alias Krishnkant v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 510

Nagendra Kumar Yaqdav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 511

Pradeep Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 512

Ram Prasad and Anr. vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 513

Swami Shiv Swarupanand Ji Maharaj vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 514

Udayveer Singh vs. Rent Tribunal and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 515

Sobaran & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 516

Sarita Devi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 517

Kanahi and others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 518

Murari Lal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 519

Manoharlal (Deceased) and 4 others vs. Jagdish Prasad Goel 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 520

P vs. V 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 521

Putti Lal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Power Lko. And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 522

Anil Verma vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 523

Bharat Lal Gupta vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 524

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt Rachna Singh and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 525

Rakesh vs State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 526

The Cricket Association of Uttar Pradesh vs. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 527

Indra Pati And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 528

Harikesh Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 529

Randhir and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 530

M/s Anu Enterprises through Proprietor Anu Singh vs. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow & 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 531

Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 532

Shivalik Small Finance Bank Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 533

Prof. Sanjay Mittal vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources and Development and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 534

Gurmel Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 535

Dr Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 536

Sant Ram Gautam Constable vs. State Of U.P. Thru Secy And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 537

Rayeesh Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 538

Dhanendra Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 539

State of U.P. and 3 Ors. vs. Raj Narain Yadav Constable 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 540

Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 541

Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 542

Rakesh Kumar Tiwari vs. State of U.P. & Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 543

Ankur Tandon vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 544

XXX vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 545

Hasan Ahmad vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Rural Engineering Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 546

M/s Aims Max Gardenia Developers Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory vs. Mrs. Pratibha Gupta 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 547

Yogendra vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 548

M/s Mahamaya General Finance Company Ltd. vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 549

Dharmwati Devi vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 550

Reserve Bank of India Through its Assistant General Manager and another vs. Vijayanand Rai 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 551

Raju Kashyap and 2 others vs. Smt Archana Jain 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 552

Alok Dhangar and another v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 553

Ram Kripal vs. J.D.C. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 554

Devendra Kumar Agrawal vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 555

Viddya Dhar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 556

Duliram Maurya vs. Nandram 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 557

Kunwar Sultan Ali & 2 Others vs. State of U.P. & 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 558

Kusum Maurya And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 559

Devansh Alias Chhotu vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 560

Kamal Nayan Singh and 9 others v. State of UP and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 561

Mohd Idrish vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 562

Vineet Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cooperative Lko. And 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 563

Vikramaditya Gas Agencies vs. Union of India and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 564

Subhash Chandra Tyagi v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 565

Jagdish Kumar Bansal v. Manish Agrawal and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 566

Kishan Lal Ahuja and another v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 567

Vijai Kumar and 153 others v. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 568

Arif Khan vs. Smt Roshan Jahan 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 569

Anurag Dubey @ Dabban vs State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 570

Arpit Gupta vs State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 571

Ansad Badruddin And Another vs Anti Terrorist Squad Thru. Its Adg/Sp 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 572

Babu Lal v. Prescribed Authority Ceilling Unnao And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 573

Chandra Fabrics Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 574

Swastik Ventures Pvt. Ltd v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 575

Rishi Katiyar and 3 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 576

Hirendra Kushwaha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 577

Ritesh Yadav vs. Reserve Bank Of India New Delhi Thru. Its Governor And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 578

Mr. Vipin Mishra and 23 Ors. v. Union of India Through Secy. Ministry of Human Resource Deve 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 579

M/s B.L. Agro Industries Limited, Bareilly Thru. Mr. Amit Kumar Authorised Signatory v. Union of India Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue Govt. of India New Delhi Thru. Secy. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 580

Murti Shri Ram Chandra Ji Virajman And 6 Others v. Ashish and 19 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 581

Nasir Farooq vs State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 582

Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority vs. Ms Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 583

Kanti Kumar v. Board of Revenue and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 584

Divya Tripathi @ Divya Mishra vs The Bar Council of Uttar Paradesh and others Thru. its Secy. Lko. and 2 others and a connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 585

M/s D.K.Automobiles Thru. Sole Proprietor Smt.Shradha Agarwal and another vs Union of India,Thru. Secy. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas New Delhi and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 586

Mohd. Jamil Warsi vs. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Thru C.J. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 587

Ram Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 588

Ram Autar Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 589

Brijesh Singh Dagar vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 590

Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 591

Kalyan Health Care Products Pharmaceuticals Co-Operative Society Limited v. State of U P and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 592

Ashok Kumar And 7 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Karmik Anubhag And 3 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 593

Shri Thakur Ram Janki Sugrivji Virajman Mandir, Thru. Sarvarahkar Swami Vishvesh Prapannacharya v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 594

Ravi Srivastava vs Ajay Sharma 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 595

Chhotey And Another vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 596

Satendra Siwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 597

Ex. Sub Inspector C.P. Pno-792590505 Deshraj Tyagi vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 598

Jyotinjay Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 599

Mahendra Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Basic Education U.P.Civil Sectt.And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 600

Ved Pati Tripathi and 2 Ors vs. State of U.P. Thru Secretary Secondary Education and 4 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 601

Nitin vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 602

Amita Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. with Shivraj Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 603

Vegraj Singh And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 604

Chhajju Ram vs. Babu Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 605

Jagan vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 606

Asgar and others vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 607

SR and two others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 608

Suresh and 7 others vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 609

Devendra Pratap Singh alias Rahul Farji and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 610

Shivam Yadav @ Chhotu vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 611

Sachindra Kumar Pandey vs Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 612

Jyoti Vidya Mandir Anandpuri Chhawni Sarkar Thru Manager Dayanand Mishra vs Nagar Palika Parishad Gonda through its Its President And others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 613

Jhanvi Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 614

Durgesh Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615

Inder Bhushan Sawhney vs. Kanchan Kumari Jain (Dead) and 2 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 615

Jitendra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 617

Sukaina Rizvi vs. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 618

Chotkau Alias Allauddin v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 619

Aarambh Agro Purposes Co-Operative Society Ltd and another v. State of U.P. and 13 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 620

A v. K 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 621

Neelabh Gupta vs. Purshottam Das Gupta And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 622

Ranjana Pandey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 623

Meisheng Chiang @ Chiang Mei Sheng vs. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Deptt. Of Personnel And Training New Delhi And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 624

St. John S School, Babhanauti, Pachwal vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 625

Vishram Singh vs. Rajya Uttar Pradesh and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 626

Lali v. Union Of India Through General Manager North Central Railway 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 627

Durgesh Thru. His Stepsister Mrs. Rubi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 628

Himanshu Thakur vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 629

Birendra Prasad Shukla ,Thru. Power Of Attorney Holder Rajendra Prasad Shukla vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning, Lko And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 630

Ashok Kumar vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 631

Mahendra Kumar Dubey vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 632

Shashi Mishra vs. Bar Council Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 633

Mohd Kamil Alias Guddu and another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 634

Krishna Pal and others vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 635

Shiv Narain @ Surya Narain vs. State of U.P. and connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 636

Shailesh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 637