LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Weekly Round Up: August 24 - August 30, 2026
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
30 Aug 2026 6:00 PM IST
NOMINAL INDEX
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
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
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".
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case title - Pushpraj Singh @ Babloo vs. State of U.P
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to appear personally before it and explain why police officers are showing 'reluctance' to obey/comply with orders passed by the Court.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed the direction while hearing a bail application filed by Pushpraj Singh alias Babloo in a case involving murder allegations.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) recently flagged police non-compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, requiring audio-video recording of search and seizure proceedings.
A bench of Justice Rajeev Bharti made the observation while granting interim anticipatory bail to four accused in a case under Sections 3/5A/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, registered at Gosaiganj Police Station, Sultanpur.
Case title - Uphar Kushwaha vs. State Of U.P. And And 3 Others
The Allahabad High Court has flagged what it described as "disturbing circumstances" prevailing in Uttar Pradesh's Basic Education Department, observing that allegations of corruption and illegal gratification are frequently brought to its notice.
A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan made the observation while considering an application seeking withdrawal of a writ petition that had remained pending before the Court for nearly six years.
Dealing with a suo motu matter concerning the plight of more than 200 'Gen Alpha' schoolchildren in Hamirpur, the Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Forest Department to issue the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) for construction of a 1.6-kilometre road stretch leading to their school "with expedition".
A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra was informed that the State Government has now sanctioned ₹1.81 crore for construction of the road, but the crucial 1.6-kilometre stretch falls on forest land and construction remains dependent on the requisite Forest NOC.
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has flagged the rising number of e-rickshaws in Lucknow, observing that their increasing presence on city roads is creating a "huge traffic problem" and that the State "cannot sit in a state of slumber" on the issue.
A Bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai said the issue is 'serious' and needs to be dealt with expeditiously by framing a suitable policy.
Case title - Suo-Moto Inre Right to Decent and Dignified Last Rites/Cremation
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to rehabilitate and relocate the family of the Hathras gang rape and murder victim to Ghaziabad or Noida within 3 months, after finding "unnecessary resistance" on the State's part in complying with its earlier directions.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jaspreet Singh observed that the State's decision dated February 22, 2025, offering the family rehabilitation at Kasganj, Etah or Aligarh, did not consider their request for relocation to Ghaziabad or Noida and was therefore "no decision in the eyes of law".
Allahabad High Court Pushes For Direct Court Access To Medical, Forensic Records In Criminal Cases
The Allahabad High Court has directed further arrangements to enable courts to directly access medical and forensic records related to criminal cases, while taking note of significant progress already made in integrating various criminal justice databases.
The Allahabad High Court has been informed that the Mathura administration has made security arrangements at the disputed Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah premises in connection with concerns raised over the possibility of 'Kar Seva' at the site.
A Bench of Justice Avnish Saxena was informed about the arrangements after perusing a sealed-cover report submitted by the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura.
Case Title: Javed Alam v. Mr. Himanshu Nagpal, Commissioner Of Municipal Corporation And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court has flagged a contradiction in the stand of three authorities facing contempt proceedings over the demolition of a house in Varanasi, in the face of a status quo order.
All three have denied on affidavit that they demolished anything, while one of them has admitted that he was standing at the spot with police force while the demolition went on.
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the District Magistrate (DM) is not vested with power under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, to act as a supervising authority for the distribution of fertilizers.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla made the observation while hearing a writ petition concerning the supply of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) to petitioner-Marihan Agro Farmer Producer Company Limited in Mirzapur.
