JUDGMENTS/ORDERS OF THE MONTH

Active Concealment Of Material Facts By Advocate Interferes With Administration Of Justice: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shiv Shankar Singh v. Committee of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 638

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 638

The Allahabad High Court has held that an advocate who withholds material facts within his knowledge and presses a contrary position before the Court is guilty of active concealment which interferes with the administration of justice. It held that such conduct must be distinguished from a statement made in ignorance of the true position, which does not attract the same consequence.

The distinction was drawn while examining the conduct of two advocates on whose common assertion the Court had earlier directed elections of a college committee of management to be held on a particular electoral list.

Allahabad High Court Upholds 10% Cap On SBI Higher Grade Placement, Says Scoring Prescribed Marks Only Creates Right To Consideration

Case Title: The State Bank of India and 5 others vs. Priyanshu Arya and 39 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 639

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 639

The Allahabad High Court has held that a policy stipulating that officers who score prescribed marks at training “shall be considered” for placement in a higher grade confers only a right to be considered, not a right to be placed in that grade. It held that a cap restricting such placement to the top 10% of a batch, brought in while the batch was still under assessment, did not change the rules of the game midway.

UP Regularisation Rules Don't Apply To Employees Of District Rural Development Agencies Working Under Govt Schemes: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Rajendra Kumar And 33 Ors v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 640

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 640

The Allahabad High Court has held that persons engaged by a District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) cannot claim the benefit of the UP Regularisation of Persons Working on Daily Wages or on Work Charge or on Contract in Government Departments on Group 'C' and Group 'D' Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016, as the agency is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act which discharges functions under the schemes and projects of the Government of India.

'Deliberate Suppression' Of Material Facts: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Concerning College Bank Accounts With ₹1L Costs

Case Title: Masihunnisa Degree College Thru. Manager Abida Banno And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 641

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 641

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking permission to operate the bank accounts of a degree college by imposing ₹1L Costs as it found that the petitioner had "deliberately withheld" material facts concerning a long-running management dispute and previous proceedings before the Court.

A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary noted that the petitioner had attempted to present a heavily contested dispute over the management of the society running the college as a simple case concerning the de-freezing of bank accounts.

Revenue Entries Describing Plot As 'Tank' Not Conclusive To Eject Hereditary Tenant Under UP Land Reforms Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Achhaibar Singh v. Board of Revenue And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 642

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 642

The Allahabad High Court has held that a tenant whose hereditary tenancy was judicially declared before the date of vesting cannot be ejected under Section 212 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 merely because the revenue records later describe the plot as a tank.

It held that the authority invoking the provision must establish that the tenant was admitted upon land which, at the relevant time, was recorded as or was a customary tank or other land of public utility.

Petitioner's Residence Can't Confer Article 226 Jurisdiction When Impugned Order Passed Outside HC Territory: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Yadvendra Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 643

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 643

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that it cannot entertain a writ petition against an order passed by an authority situated outside its territory merely because the petitioner resides within its territory.

Justice Anish Kumar Gupta relied on Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India, wherein the Apex Court held that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution turns on where the authority passing the order is located, and not on where the person aggrieved by that order lives.

Collected Taxes For 8 Years, Then Initiated Eviction; Allahabad High Court Slams Meerut Cantonment Board, Sets Aside Orders

Case Title: Virendra Kumar Manocha And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 644

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 644

The Allahabad High Court has set aside eviction proceedings against occupants of a property in Meerut Cantonment, observing that the Cantonment Board's Chief Executive Officer, who also held the charge of Estate Officer, was aware that the petitioners were occupying the property and, despite this, remained silent for 8 years before eviction proceedings were initiated.

A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also found that the official concerned had acted against well-settled principles, observing that "authorities cannot blow hot and cold at the same time".

Noida Workers' Protest | Allahabad High Court Quashes NSA Detention Of Student Activist, Terms State's Version 'Concocted'

Case Title: Akriti Chaudhary vs. Union Of India And 4 Others

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 645

The Allahabad High Court quashed the National Security Act (NSA) detention of Aakriti Chaudhary, a 25-year-old Delhi University history graduate who has been in custody for around 5 months in connection with the Noida workers' protest of April 2026.

Allowing her habeas corpus petition challenging her detention, a Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev found that the detention was based on a "concocted story" by the state. Hence, it directed her immediate release if arrest was not warranted in any other case.

No Document To Back Claim: Allahabad High Court Dismisses As Withdrawn Plea Alleging Rahul Gandhi Is British National

Case title - Ashok Pandey And Another vs. Sri Rahul Gandhi @ Raul Vinci New Delhi And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 646

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 646

The Allahabad High Court allowed the withdrawal of a writ petition alleging that the Leader of the Opposition and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is a British national.

The petition, which also questioned Gandhi's right to hold the office of Member of the Lok Sabha from Rae Bareli, was dismissed as withdrawn after the petitioners failed to produce a single document to support the allegations and claims in the plea.

Done Away By Police Or Hiding From Justice? Allahabad High Court Directs CBI Probe Into Missing Man With 30 Criminal Cases

Case title - Muttliv vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 647

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 647

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the disappearance of a Muzaffarnagar man with around 30 criminal cases.

The bench prima facie observed that his absence could lead to two possible inferences, either he had been "done away" with by the police or he was himself hiding to escape the process of justice.

S.304-B IPC | Fine In Addition To Sentence Cannot Be Imposed Where Statute Does Not Provide For It: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Laxmi Narayan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 648

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 648

The Allahabad High Court has observed that Section 304-B IPC, a provision punishing the Dowry Death offence, does not prescribe any fine in addition to the sentence and hence, the same can not be imposed on a convict.

A bench of Justice Zafeer Ahmad made the observation as it flagged a “glaring error” in the decision of a trial court to impose a fine of Rs. 20K on an accused convicted under the provision.

Allahabad High Court Flags Trend Of Court Decrees Becoming Meaningless Due To Police, Revenue Authorities' Disregard

Case title - Vishv Jaat Sangh Cheritable And Religious Trust And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 649

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 649

The Allahabad High Court has flagged a trend in which Civil Court decrees are becoming 'meaningless' due to the approach of police and revenue authorities, observing that such authorities appear to treat the Civil Court as "hardly a Court" and its orders and decrees as having no effect.

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by Vishv Jaat Sangh Charitable and Religious Trust concerning the enforcement of a permanent injunction decree protecting its possession of the disputed property.

UP Police Investigation Quality Shall Be Improved; Cops Will Comply With Court Orders In Time: DGP Assures Allahabad High Court

Case title - Pushpraj Singh @ Babloo vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 650

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 650

Uttar Pradesh DGP Rajeev Krishna appeared personally before the Allahabad High Court on September 1 and assured a bench of Justice Sameer Jain that the quality of UP Police investigations would be improved and that police officers would comply with the Court's orders in time.

The assurance came during the hearing of a bail application in a murder case. Justice Jain had earlier expressed concern over the continuous non-compliance of its orders by Investigating Officers and also raised concerns regarding the quality of investigation, particularly in heinous offences like murder.

Biological Father Can Adopt His Own Illegitimate Son Under 'Hindu Adoption And Maintenance Act': Allahabad High Court

Case title - Budhi Ram And Others vs. Ram Kesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 651

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 651

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Hindu male is not prohibited under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, from adopting his own illegitimate son merely because he is the child's biological father.

A bench Justice Arun Kumar held so while deciding a second appeal concerning an adoption allegedly made in 1970. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below that the original plaintiff (Ram Kesh), had been validly adopted by one Badlu, who was also his biological father.

S. 118 BSA | Allahabad High Court Seeks Inquiry Against Judge For Granting Bail To Husband Ignoring Dowry Death Presumption

Case title - Seema Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw AB) 652

Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 652

The Allahabad High Court recommended an inquiry against a Judicial Officer who granted bail to a husband in a dowry death case, ignoring sufficient material against him as well as the presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).

For context, Section 118 BSA provides a statutory presumption in dowry death cases. It says that where a woman dies in circumstances constituting a dowry death and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected by the accused to cruelty or harassment over Dowry, the Court shall presume that such person caused the dowry death.

Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea For FIR Against Jagadguru Rambhadracharya Over Alleged Remarks Against Upadhyay Community

Case title - Ramesh Upadhyay vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw AB) 653

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 653

The Allahabad High Court rejected a plea filed by a practising advocate seeking a direction for registration of an FIR against Jagadguru Rambhadracharya over his alleged remarks concerning the 'Upadhyay' community and revered religious personalities, including the Shankaracharyas.

A Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena observed that a person aggrieved by non-registration of an FIR must ordinarily first exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before invoking the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

Allahabad High Court Says State's “NIL” Dues Claim Must Be Tested Against Department's Own Earlier Admission

Case Title: M/s Jaiswal Foods Thru. Proprietor Sudheer Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Govt. Lko. and 22 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 654

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 654

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the State asserts, on the strength of a fresh verification exercise, that nothing remains outstanding to a contractor, the writ court is not bound to act on that assertion and must itself check the amounts released against the figure the department had earlier admitted to be payable.

Appointments Can't Be Cancelled By Appointing Authority Merely On Direction Of State Govt: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Manish Kumar and 25 Ors. vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Co-Operative Lucknow and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 655

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 655

The Allahabad High Court has held that an appointing authority cannot cancel appointments merely on the direction of the State Government, without applying its own mind.

It set aside the termination of Assistant Managers of the U.P. Cooperative Bank whose appointments were cancelled in 2019 after the Principal Secretary, Cooperative, directed that they be cancelled.

Revenue Entry Not Set Aside By Competent Authority Can't Be Treated As Forged Merely On Allegation: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Kanpur Development Authority v. Sri Nathu Lal Gupta And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 656

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 656

The Allahabad High Court has held that a revenue entry which has not been cancelled, corrected or set aside by a competent revenue authority or court, cannot be treated as forged merely because the opposite party alleges forgery.

It held that though such an entry does not by itself create title, its evidentiary effect cannot be ignored altogether, and a party relying on its falsity must establish the same before the competent forum.

NDPS Act | IO's Oral Apprehension Of Seized Items Being Drug-Sale Proceeds No Ground To Withhold Them: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sandeep Indrajeet Tiwari vs. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 657

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 657

The Allahabad High Court has held that merely on the basis of the investigating agency's oral apprehension that articles recovered from an accused's personal search could be proceeds of illegal narcotics sale, the accused cannot be deprived of their use.

A bench of Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary observed thus while setting aside an order of the Varanasi trial court refusing to release gold jewellery and ₹850 cash recovered from the accused's personal search in an NDPS Act case.

NEET | Debarring Candidate Who Vacates Allotted Medical Seat From Next Session's Admission Process Is Valid: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Rohan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 658

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 658

The Allahabad High Court has upheld a Government Order debarring a candidate who leaves a medical seat before completing the course, from the admission process of the subsequent academic session.

The Court held that while considering the rights of a candidate seeking to vacate an allotted seat, the rights of another candidate who was denied that seat cannot be lost sight of.

UP Panchayat Raj Act | Inquiry Against Gram Pradhan For Fund Misuse Not Wiped Out Merely Because Her Tenure Ended: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mahendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 659

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 659

The Allahabad High Court has held that a pending inquiry under Section 95(1)(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 against a Gram Pradhan cannot be treated as infructuous, or allowed to be stalled, merely because her tenure in office has since come to an end.

The Court held that such proceedings must be carried to their logical conclusion, given the consequences that survive the end of tenure under Section 95(2) and Section 27 of the Act.

Codeine Cough Syrup Within Permitted Quantity Attracts NDPS Act If Stocked Or Sold For Intoxication: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Bhola Prasad vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 661

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 661

The Allahabad High Court has held that codeine-based cough syrup carrying codeine within the permitted limit is not a narcotic drug so long as it is sold or transported for medicinal use, but that the moment it is stocked, sold or transported to be used as an intoxicant, the exemption is lost and it becomes a codeine preparation attracting the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Public Holiday Preventing Joining On Due Date Can't Postpone Accrual Of First Increment: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Seema Ray and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 662

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 662

The Allahabad High Court has held that where an appointment stood validly made and the appointee could take charge only on the next working day because the intervening day was a public holiday, the holiday cannot by itself postpone the accrual of a service benefit otherwise due to him.

Civil Court Can't Determine Agricultural Land Boundary Based On Advocate Commissioner's Report: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Hamid Khan And 4 Others vs. Jwala Prasad And 13 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 663

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 663

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the real controversy in a suit for injunction is the boundary between two adjoining agricultural holdings, the Civil Court cannot settle that boundary on a map prepared by an Advocate Commissioner.

It held that Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 provides a statutory mechanism of survey and demarcation before the competent Revenue Authority.

Authority Sanctioning Building Plan Can't Decide Private Title Dispute: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Map Sanction

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Malik v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 664

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 664

The Allahabad High Court has held that an authority deciding an application for sanction of a building map has no jurisdiction to hold that ownership of the land is disputed, except where the land belongs to the government or the Gaon Sabha or is the subject matter of proceedings. It held that where the dispute is private, the only question is whether an injunction is in force.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,

“..the authority concerned has no jurisdiction to take a decision that the ownership of the property is disputed except if the land is either belongs to government of Gaon Sabha or subject matter of any proceedings and in case there is a private dispute, only consideration would be whether there is an order of injunction”

MV Act | Claim Petition Can't Be Dismissed At Final Stage For Want Of Territorial Jurisdiction Without Any Prejudice: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Santosh Singh And Others v. Gajendra Singh And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 665

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 665

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot dismiss a claim petition at the close of a full trial merely on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, where none of the opposite parties has shown that it suffered any prejudice from the case being tried there.

Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 leaves the choice of forum to the claimant. The claim may go to the Tribunal for the area where the accident occurred, to the Tribunal where the claimant resides or carries on business, or to the Tribunal where the defendant resides.

Advocate, Family Received ₹23L+ Across Cases; Allahabad High Court Orders UP-Wide Inquiry Into 'Misuse' Of SC/ST Act Benefits

Case Title: Arvind Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 666

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 666

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to undertake an inquiry into the manner in which benefits under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Rules framed thereunder are claimed and disbursed, particularly in cases involving repeated claims by the same persons or their family members.

The direction was passed after a bench of Justice Santosh Rai noted that one Santosh Kumar Dohrey, an advocate by profession, and his family members had received an aggregate ₹23,36,250 in relief/financial assistance across various criminal cases.

'Sar Tan Se Juda' Slogan Challenges India's Sovereignty; Can't Equate It With 'Allahu-Akbar', 'Jai Shri Ram': Allahabad High Court

Case title - Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 667

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 667

Rejecting the bail plea of Maulana Taukir Raza Khan in connection with the September 2025 Bareilly violence case, the Allahabad High Court today observed that the slogan "Gustakh-e-Nabi Ke Ek Hi Saja, Sar Tan Se Juda, Sar Tan Se Juda" cannot be equated with religious slogans such as "Nara-e-Takbir, Allahu-Akbar", "Jo Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal", "Jai Shri Ram" or "Har Har Mahadev".

A bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed that while these slogans express respect to the concerned God or Guru, the "Sar Tan Se Juda" slogan was "nothing but a challenge to the authority of law as also to the sovereignty and integrity of India" and incited people to "an arm rebellion which is punishable under the law".

Service Rendered Before Regularisation Counts Towards Pension Eligibility, Not Towards Computation Of Pension: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Alakh Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 668

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 668

The Allahabad High Court has held that the service rendered by a government servant before his regularisation, whether as a seasonal, ad-hoc, work-charged or temporary employee, must be counted while determining whether he has the qualifying service required to make him eligible for pension. It held that the pension itself can be computed only on the basis of the regular service rendered by him.

The Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Prem Singh v. State of U.P. and Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, wherein it was clarified that previous ad-hoc or work-charged service is to be counted only towards qualifying service for pension and not towards the amount of pension payable.

Excluding Legally Unavailable Posts From Ongoing Recruitment Doesn't Amount To Changing “Rules Of Game” Midway: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar Singh and 35 others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 669

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 669

The Allahabad High Court has held that withdrawing vacancies from a running recruitment, because those posts could not lawfully be filled under the rules named in the advertisement, does not amount to altering the “rules of the game” midway.

It held that correcting the vacancy position is different in kind from changing eligibility or selection criteria. It held that only the latter is barred by the Constitution Bench ruling in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court.

Protection Against Termination Under Section 21 UP Secondary Education Act Not Available To Ad Hoc Teachers: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Yogendra Singh v. District Inspector of Schools Muzaffarnagar and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 670

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 670

The Allahabad High Court has held that the protection of prior approval of the Board under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 is not available to a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis.

It held that the safeguard operates in favour of teachers regularly appointed on the recommendation of the Board, or at least regularised by following the due procedure of law, and that ad hoc teachers appointed under the First Removal of Difficulties Order, 1981 stand as a separate class.

RTI Applicant Can't Directly Seek CCTV Footage Covered By Section 8(1)(g), May Approach Court/Commission: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shobhit Kashayap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Administrative Reform Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 671

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 671

The Allahabad High Court has held that CCTV footage sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be supplied directly to the applicant when it is covered by the exception contained in Section 8(1)(g) of the Act.

It held that a Court or Commission has the power to call for such footage and to direct its preservation, and may do so once the applicant files a complaint before the appropriate forum.

Contractual Workers Engaged Under A Scheme Have No Right To Continue After Its Closure: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ankit Pathak And 139 Others v. State Of U.P. And 20 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 672

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 672

The Allahabad High Court has held that a person engaged on contract under a government scheme cannot claim a writ of mandamus for continued engagement once the employer has abandoned the scheme. It held that in the absence of any rule, regulation or government order providing for regularisation or absorption, such an engagee has no legal right on which a mandamus can rest.

The Court further held that an employer's decision whether or not to carry on with a scheme cannot be called in question in court unless the engagee shows arbitrariness or discrimination.

S.106 BNS | Landlord Not Liable For Accidental Death In Rented Premises If No Attributable Negligence: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Avdhesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 673

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 673

The Allahabad High Court has held that mere ownership of premises cannot create vicarious criminal liability on a landlord for an accidental death unless the prosecution material discloses a legally attributable negligent act or omission on the part of the owner.

A bench Justice Saurabh Srivastava made the observation while quashing the chargesheet, cognizance/summoning order and entire criminal proceedings against a landlord in connection with the January 2025 death of a young student, an IIT Aspirant, in a bathroom where a gas geyser was installed.

Eligibility Certificate Can't Be Filed After Cut-Off Date Where Recruitment Notice Carries Negative Covenant: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Neha Rao v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 674

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 674

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a recruitment advertisement, or a notice forming part of it, contains a negative covenant fixing a cut-off date for uploading documents and stipulating that a defaulting candidate loses the right to be shortlisted, an eligibility certificate cannot be filed after that date.

It held that the distinction between existence of eligibility and proof of eligibility does not assist the candidate in such a case, and no extension or relaxation of time is permissible.

Even Genuine Parental Concern Cannot Override Major Individual's Right To Choose Life Partner: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Moni Corpus vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 675

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 675

The Allahabad High Court has held that even genuine parental concern cannot override the constitutionally protected autonomy of a major individual to choose a life partner.

The Court added that the right to choose one's partner is a facet of personal liberty and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Regularisation Takes Effect From Date Of Appointment Under Rules, Not Initial Ad-Hoc Appointment: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 676

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 676

The Allahabad High Court has held that an ad hoc employee regularised under the U.P. Regularization of Ad-Hoc Appointments (on Posts Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 1979 cannot claim that his regularisation be treated as effective from the date of his initial ad hoc appointment or from the date on which he became eligible for regularisation.

Bigamy Strictly Prohibited: Allahabad High Court Upholds CRPF Constable's Dismissal Under 'Minor Punishments' Provision

Case Title: Prabhu Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 677

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 677

The Allahabad High Court has held that a member of the Central Reserve Police Force can be dismissed from service under Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, which is headed 'Minor punishments'.

It held that the punishments listed in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 11(1) are awardable in addition to, or in lieu of, suspension or dismissal, and are not the only punishments the provision permits.

UP Ceiling Act | Land Transfer During Pending Proceedings Is Void, Can't Be Saved By Tenure-Holder's 'Right Of Choice': Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Kamlesh Prasad and another vs. Prescribed Authority Celing/Addl.Collector Admin.Lko.Andors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 678

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 678

The Allahabad High Court has held that a transfer of land made during the continuance of proceedings for determination of surplus land is void under Section 5(8) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. It held that the Prescribed Authority cannot validate such a transfer by accepting the choice exercised by the tenure-holder under Section 12-A of the Act.

Allahabad High Court Directs CAT To Expeditiously Decide Ex-IPS Amitabh Thakur's Challenge To Compulsory Retirement

Case Title - Amitabh Thakur Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 679

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 679

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has directed the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Lucknow Bench, to expeditiously decide ex-IPS officer Amitabh Thakur's challenge to his compulsory retirement, which has been pending before the Tribunal since 2021.

A bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh passed the order while dealing with a petition filed by Thakur under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking expeditious disposal of his pending Application filed in 2021.

Revisional Authority Can't Set Aside Final Order Passed By Coordinate Revisional Authority In Separate Revision: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Umesh Singh and 3 Ors. Objection Filed v. Addl. Commissioner Lucknow and 5 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 680

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 680

The Allahabad High Court has held that a revisional authority deciding a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 has no jurisdiction to set aside a final judgment already rendered by another revisional authority of coordinate jurisdiction in a separate revision arising out of the same appellate order.

Section 219(1) of the Act allows the specified revenue authorities to call for the record of a case decided by a subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies, or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, and to examine the legality or propriety of the order passed. Sub-section (2) bars a further application under the section by the same person before any other such authority.

Charge-Sheet Witnesses Must Be Examined In Presence Of Delinquent Employee, Deviation Infringes Natural Justice: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 681

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 681

The Allahabad High Court has held that Rule 7(vii) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 requires the Inquiry Officer to record the oral evidence of the witnesses named in the charge-sheet in the presence of the charged government servant, and any deviation infringes the principles of natural justice.

It held that the opportunity to cross-examine must be given even where the delinquent employee has not specifically asked for it.

Civil Services | Disciplinary Proceedings Can't Continue After Retirement Without Governor Sanction Under Regulation 351-A: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ganesh Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 682

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 682

The Allahabad High Court has held that a disciplinary proceeding initiated against a government servant before his retirement cannot continue after he retires, and no punishment can be imposed on its basis, without the sanction of the Governor under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations.

Regulation 351-A reserves to the Governor the right to withhold or withdraw a pension and to order recovery from a pension of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by a pensioner's misconduct or negligence during service. Departmental proceedings not instituted while the officer was on duty require the Governor's sanction.

Magistrate Can Reject Police Final Report And Summon Accused If Case Diary Discloses Prima Facie Offence: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Jeetu Soni v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 683

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 683

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and summon the accused even where the police have filed a final report concluding that no case is made out, and that in doing so he is not required to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code.

Order 39 CPC | Bar On Grant Of Final Relief At Interim Stage Is Not An Absolute Proposition Of Law: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan v. Richa Mishra and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 684

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 684

The Allahabad High Court has held that the bar on granting relief at the interim stage which resembles the final relief is not an absolute proposition of law and creates no jurisdictional embargo on the grant of a temporary injunction. It held that the question turns on the facts of each case, with the prima facie case tested at a higher level.

Justice Jaspreet Singh held,

“Thus, to state as a matter of bland proposition that an interim relief which is somewhat similar to the final relief cannot be granted at all would be an incorrect enunciation of law. It was open for the Appellate Court to have discharged the injunction provided it would have considered the facts as well as the material on record and dealt with the findings recorded by the trial court.”

Order XXI CPC Not Applicable To Execution Of Eviction Orders Passed Under Section 67 UP Revenue Code: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Pooja Devi vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue Lko And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 685

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 685

The Allahabad High Court has held that an order of eviction or of compensation passed under Section 67(3) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 cannot be executed through the long drawn procedure prescribed under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It held that the Code of 2006 and the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 themselves supply the machinery for enforcing such orders.

'Bunch Of Liars': Allahabad High Court Pulls Up SHO, SP Over Police Station CCTV Lapses; Orders ₹65K Compensation For Illegal Detention

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 686

The Allahabad High Court came down heavily on the Station House Officer (SHO) of a Police Station in District Deoria and the concerned Superintendent of Police (SP), questioning them over the failure of the police station CCTV system and the absence of CCTV footage in a case concerning the illegal detention of 4 petitioners for 10 days.

Mere Registration Of Criminal Case Does Not Mechanically Disqualify A Candidate From Police Service: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: State of U.P. through Secretary and others v. Janmesh Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 687

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 687

The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate cannot be mechanically disqualified from appointment to the police force merely because a criminal case was registered against him.

It held that the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which governs verification of the character and antecedents of State Government recruits, provides for an assessment of the candidate's suitability and does not impose a blanket ban on persons against whom a crime has been registered.

Senior Citizens Act | Tribunal Can Evict Children To Protect Elderly's Life & Limb: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shyamji Shukla v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 688

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 688

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 can order the eviction of children or relatives from a senior citizen's property where that is expedient to protect his life and limb. It held that the power is not expressly conferred by the Act, but arises as an incident of the right to maintenance and protection.

Allotment Cancelled After 26 Years 'Total Abuse Of Process': Allahabad High Court Restores Land To Family

Case Title: Bhoorey Singh v. Additional Commissioner Judicial-II Aligarh And 8 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 689

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 689

The Allahabad High Court has held that an agricultural allotment made in 1987 could not be cancelled under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in proceedings started on a private complaint 26 years later, more so where the allottee had by then been recorded as bhumidhar with transferable rights.

Section 198(6) of the Act fixes the outer limit for issuing a notice to show cause in such proceedings. For an allotment made before November 10, 1980, the notice must issue within seven years of that date; for one made on or after it, within five years of the allotment or lease, or up to November 10, 1987, whichever is later.

UP Police Rules | Delay In Filing Revision Against Punishment Is Condonable Under S. 5 Limitation Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Vijay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 690

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 690

The Allahabad High Court has held that delay in filing a revision under Rule 23 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the Rules neither expressly exclude the Limitation Act nor create any bar against condonation of delay.

Rule 23(1) of the Rules entitles a police officer whose appeal has been rejected to apply for revision to the superior authority next above the appellate authority, within three months. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies Sections 4 to 24 of that Act, which include Section 5, the provision for condonation of delay, to limitation prescribed by a special or local law, except to the extent expressly excluded by that law.

Discriminatory Sugarcane Allocation Below Mill's Requirement Can't Be Justified By Delayed Payments: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Yadu Sugar Limited v. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 691

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 691

The Allahabad High Court has held that discriminatory allocation of sugarcane below a mill's estimated requirement cannot be justified on the basis of its low drawl or alleged delay in payment of cane price, particularly where the short allocation itself contributed to the low drawl and affected the mill's ability to make payments.

It further held that sugarcane allocation should account for the fact that only about 60% of the cane supplied is ultimately available for crushing, with the remaining 40% lost to pilferage and other losses.

Defence In Written Statement Can't Be Converted Into Ground For Rejection Of Plaint Under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Neeraj Maheshwari vs. Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 692

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 692

The Allahabad High Court has held that a defence which, if established, may defeat the plaintiff's claim cannot ordinarily be converted into a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It held that the enquiry rests on the averments in the plaint alone and pleas taken by a defendant in his written statement are not relevant to deciding whether the plaint discloses a cause of action.

Order 9 Rule 13 CPC | Limitation Must Be Decided Before Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree, Failure A Jurisdictional Error: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: L v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 693

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 693

The Allahabad High Court has held that a court hearing an application to set aside an ex parte decree must decide the question of limitation first, and allowing an application filed 21 years late without any finding on the cause of the delay is a jurisdictional error. It held that until the delay is condoned there is no application before the court in the eye of law.

Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires a court to set aside an ex parte decree if the defendant satisfies it that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.

S. 197 CrPC | Custodial Violence, Molestation Not Police's Official Duty, But Crime: Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To Cops

Case Title - Lady Constable Shivani Joshi and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another and connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 694

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 694

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the rejection of discharge applications filed by police personnel accused of repeatedly beating people in police custody and molesting women.

The Court said that such violence cannot be termed a part of police duty and can only be described as a crime.

'Wisdom Teeth, Pubic Hair Cannot Establish Girl Was Minor': Allahabad High Court Acquits Man In Kidnapping Case

Case Title - Bhaiya Lal Raidas vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 695

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 695

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 366 IPC in a 2011 kidnapping case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the incident.

A Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that the absence of third molars (wisdom teeth) could not be made a basis for holding that a person had not attained 18 years. The court added that the mere presence of axillary and pubic hair could not lead to an inference that the same were not fully developed.

Independent Title Claim Doesn't Make Person Necessary Party In Small Causes Eviction Suit: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Gayatri Devi v. Smt. Omwati Devi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 696

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 696

The Allahabad High Court has held that a third person asserting an independent title over a rented property does not become a necessary or proper party to an eviction suit before the Small Causes Court only because that title clashes with the landlord's.

It held that impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be used to carry a separate title dispute into a suit limited to the landlord-tenant relationship and the grounds for eviction.

Bar Association Membership Disputes Private In Nature, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Lal Bihari Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 697

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 697

The Allahabad High Court has held that Bar Association membership disputes are private in nature and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court sadi that disputes concerning membership, suspension or debarment of members do not involve any public law element.

A Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by an advocate challenging his 1-year debarment from the membership of the Central Bar Association, Tehsil Gola Gokaran Nath, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

UP Govt Persistent In Using 'Goondas Act' As A 'Tool Of Oppression': Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Zahid Ali vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 698

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 698

The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government's use of the Goondas Act, observing that numerous cases before the Court indicate that the State is "persistent in its approach of using the Goonda Act as a tool of oppression".

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while quashing orders passed against a Gonda resident, declaring him a 'Goonda' under the UP Control of Goondas Act, 1970, and externing him from Gonda district for six months.

RTE Act | Assistant Teacher's Appointment Without TET Saved If Qualification Acquired Before 31.03.2015 Deadline: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mohd. Mustafa Siddiqui v. District Basic Education Officer and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 699

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 699

The Allahabad High Court has held that the appointment of an Assistant Teacher who did not possess the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualification at the time of appointment is saved where the teacher clears the TET before 31.03.2015, the time limit available under the first proviso to Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the State's Government Order dated 05.12.2012.

Regular FSSAI License Must For Large-Scale Slaughterhouse, Registration Certificate Not Enough: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Junaid Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 700

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 700

The Allahabad High Court has held that a regular license under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, is required for a large-scale slaughterhouse operating beyond the prescribed capacity for a 'petty food business' and that a mere registration certificate cannot authorize such activity.

A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad observed that the Fundamental right to carry on a trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution does not dispense with a valid licensing requirement imposed in the interest of food safety and public health.

Article 227 Petition Maintainable Against Small Causes Court's Refusal To Stay Suit Under Section 10 CPC: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Smt Raisi Begum and 2 others v. Javed Anwar and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 701

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 701

The Allahabad High Court has held that an order rejecting an application under Section 10 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking stay of a suit pending before a Court of Small Causes, does not constitute a “case decided” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

UP Municipalities Act | Nagar Panchayat Has Authority To License Cattle Markets Even On Private Land: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Imran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 702

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 702

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Nagar Panchayat has the authority to licence and regulate cattle markets within its local limits under the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916, while dismissing a challenge to the license granted for holding a cattle market.

A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla was hearing a petition challenging orders dated December 2025 and March 2026, which authorized respondent no. 7 to hold a cattle market at a place in Mahavan town, Mathura district on Wednesdays and Saturdays.

Teacher Suspended Over Allegations Of Forced Islamic Practices At School Gets Relief From Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Mohd. Anzar Ahmed vs. Principal Secretary Basic Education And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 703

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 703

The Allahabad High Court granted relief to a teacher who was suspended over allegations that students at the school were performing Islamic prayers and wearing uniforms indicating that they belonged to a "special community".

A bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan directed that the departmental inquiry against the teacher be concluded at the earliest, preferably within 15 days, and ordered that the suspension order remain in abeyance till the conclusion of the inquiry.

Maintenance | Multiplication Of 'Non-Compulsive' Litigation Creating Unwarranted Burden On Family Courts: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Shashi Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 704

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 704

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the multiplication of "optional and non-compulsive litigation” is creating an unwarranted burden on Family Courts and causing delay in the disposal of matters.

A bench Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a woman seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of an execution case concerning maintenance payable by her husband.

Does Conversion Automatically End Scheduled Tribe Status? Allahabad High Court Answers

Case title - Nanhki @ Naimunnisha vs. State of U.P. and 3 others along with connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 705

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 705

The Allahabad High Court has observed that conversion to another religion, by itself, does not automatically end a person's Scheduled Tribe (ST) status.

The Court said that whether a person continues to remain a member of a ST is a question of fact, to be determined by examining the essential attributes of tribal identity, including customary practices, social organization, community life and acceptance by the concerned tribal community

Premature Release | Jail Conduct Alone Can't Decide A Convict's Eligibility, Govt Must Take Holistic View: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Adil @ Seeran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 706

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 706

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Government, while considering a convict's plea for premature release, cannot restrict its consideration to the nature of the crime and the convict's conduct in jail.

The Court added that the authority must take a "far more broad based and holistic" view and consider the wider circumstances relevant to the convict's reformation and possible reintegration into society.

UP Bureaucrats Using Goondas Act As 'Tool Of Oppression'; To Face Punitive Damages For Illegal Orders: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Abhishek Tyagi vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Dwara Grah Sachiv And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 707

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 707

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the UP Goondas Act is being used as a tool of oppression by the Uttar Pradesh bureaucrats and the State despite the Court's consistent rulings on the issue.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Jain held that the bureaucracy must stop issuing illegal and arbitrary orders, or else it will have to face punitive damages.

"This Court has uptill now refrained from imposing damages on the bureaucrats who are continuously passing whimsical orders in purported exercise of power vested under the Act of 1970, but now time has come when a strong message is required to be sent to the bureaucracy to stop doing this or otherwise face punitive damages for arbitrary and illegal exercise of the power under the Act of 1970", the bench observed.

'He Voluntarily Embraced Islam' : Allahabad High Court Frees Ayush Malik From Home Confinement

Case title - Ayush Malik And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 708

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 708

The Allahabad High Court has set at liberty a 31-year-old man named Ayush Malik after he told the Court that he had voluntarily embraced Islam and alleged that his father subsequently subjected him to threats and unlawful confinement.

The Court noted that the material placed before it further indicated that Malik has been "residing under police presence at his house".

Man Who Spent 2.5 Years In Jail Over Alleged 'Derogatory' Email Against CM Yogi Gets Bail From Allahabad High Court

Case title - Mubarak Ali vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 709

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 709

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a man who had been in jail for about 2.5 years in a case involving allegations that he sent an email containing derogatory remarks against Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.

A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal allowed the bail application of Mubarak Ali, who was booked in 2024 under Sections 153A, 295A, 505(2), 504, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act.

Landowners Under UP Awas Vikas Act Entitled To Same Benefits As Under 2013 Land Acquisition Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Shri Saryu Nagar Vikas Samiti Thru. President Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 710

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 710

The Allahabad High Court has held that landowners whose land is compulsorily acquired under the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 must be given monetary as well as non-monetary compensation on the same parameters as those prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

It held that any other view would result in arbitrary and hostile discrimination and would not be sustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Also read : UP Awas Vikas Act Primarily For Housing Development, Land Acquisition Only Incidental; No Repugnancy With 2013 Act: Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court Frees Major Woman Detained Over Interfaith Marriage, Says Father Can't Force Her To Live With Him

Case title - Princy Thru. Her Husband Gurpreet Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 711

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 711

The Allahabad High Court has set a major woman, who said she was illegally detained by her father after marrying a man of a different religion, at liberty, while observing that an adult woman has the legal right to choose whom she wants to live with.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi thus allowed the habeas corpus petition filed by one Princy through her husband/next friend Gurpreet Singh. The Court directed that she be set at liberty from her father's custody, after she categorically stated that she wanted to live with her husband.

Former Cabinet Minister's Status Can't Substitute Proof Of Income In Motor Accident Claim: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Smt. Kamla Devi And Others v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 712

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 712

The Allahabad High Court has held that the profession or social standing of a person killed in a motor accident cannot by itself determine his income for the purpose of computing compensation.

It held that income has to be established by evidence on record and that an Income Tax Return, though relevant, does not by itself prove the income disclosed in it.

S. 180 BNSS | Allahabad High Court Asks DGP To Make Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory For IOs

Case Title - Chandrakanta vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 713

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 713

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to consider making audio-video recording of statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS 'mandatory', observing that such a step would make criminal investigations more transparent and fair.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the direction while dealing with a bail application filed by a woman accused in a dowry-related case.

'Plague Of Custodial Death Does Not Show Any Sign Of Abating': Allahabad High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To RPF Personnel

Case Title - Karan Singh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 714

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 714

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) on Tuesday rejected an anticipatory bail plea filed by a Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel accused in a case concerning the alleged custodial death of a man in Gonda, observing that the "plague of custodial death does not show any sign of abating".

A bench of Justice Manish Mathur was considering a criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) SC-ST Act, challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gonda.

Disciplinary Action Can't Rest On Unrecorded Oral Directions: Allahabad High Court Quashes UP Tax Officer's Punishment

Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 715

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 715

The Allahabad High Court has set aside the penalty of censure and withholding of one salary increment with cumulative effect imposed on a State Tax officer, holding that a charge of not complying with oral directions issued in video conferencing meetings cannot be sustained where neither the dates of those meetings nor their minutes were placed on record. It held that such an order rests on hypothetical charges.

Allahabad High Court Allows Women Lawyers Nominated After Bar Association Polls To Continue, Directs Bye-Law Amendment For 30% Representation

Case Title: Bhavna Pandit vs. State of U.P. and 16 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 716

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 716

The Allahabad High Court has declined to quash the elections to the executive body of the Civil Bar Association, Bulandshahr, in which no woman lawyer was elected as an office bearer, holding that the requirement of 30% representation for women stood fulfilled by the nomination of four women advocates to the body within four days of the poll.

'Wealth & Status' Can't Buy Softer Justice: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Builder In PMLA Case Alleging ₹126 Crore Diversion

Case Title - Anil Mithas vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 717

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 717

The Allahabad High Court rejected the bail application of Unnati Fortune Holdings Ltd.'s main promoter and builder, Anil Mithas, who faces money laundering charges under the PMLA over the alleged diversion of ₹126.30 crore belonging to homebuyers.

In a significant observation, the bench said that white-collar crime has "grown too pervasive and too costly" to be met with anything less than "firm, uncompromising enforcement".

'Sad State Of Affairs': Allahabad High Court Slams SP, DM Over Failure To Display Fairness In Gang Chart Approval

Case Title - Babboo Shah vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 718

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 718

The Allahabad High Court slammed the Superintendent of Police (SP) and District Magistrate (DM) posted in Bahraich district for being 'unmindful' of Constitutional Court Judgments requiring application of mind and display of fairness while approving gang charts under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.

A bench of Justice Manish Mathur noted that neither the SP nor the DM had indicated any "reason, deliberation or application of mind" to the criminal history of an accused while approving the gang chart in a 2021 case.

Attempt-To-Murder Accused Gets Short-Term Bail From Allahabad High Court To Take UP Home Guard Physical Test

Case Title - Anuj Kumar Tiwari @Gulu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 719

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 719

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) granted short-term bail to an attempt to murder accused lodged in jail to enable him to appear for the UP Homeguard recruitment physical test.

The Court directed that he be released from jail at 4:30 AM and remain in police custody throughout the period.

SBI Illegally Debits ₹19.90 Lakh From Widow's FD For Husband's Loan: Allahabad High Court Orders Refund, ₹1 Lakh Compensation

Case Title - Neha Mishra vs. Reserve Bank Of India Thru. Governor Central Office Building Mumbai And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 720

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 720

The Allahabad High Court last week directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to refund ₹19,90,693 that it had debited from a widow's fixed deposit towards her deceased husband's outstanding personal loan and to pay ₹1 Lakh as compensation.

The Court held that the Bank had no legal basis to recover the husband's dues straightaway from the wife's account.

Forged TET Certificate Renders Appointment Void Ab Initio, No Regular Departmental Enquiry Needed Before Termination: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 721

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 721

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the certificate on which a public appointment rests is found to be forged, the appointment is void ab initio and its cancellation is not a punitive termination attracting the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. It held that a show-cause notice and compliance with the broad principles of natural justice are sufficient.

The Court added that this applies only where the forgery is conclusively established, and not where the material shows a mere discrepancy calling for verification.

Objective Test For Compassionate Appointment Applicants Reasonable When Vacancies Are Limited: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ajay Singh Yadav and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 722

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 722

The Allahabad High Court has held that where more dependants apply for compassionate appointment than there are posts earmarked for them, requiring the candidates to sit in an objective type test is not an unreasonable way of choosing between them.

It rejected the challenge to the note appended to rule 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015, which restricts such appointments to 5 per cent of the posts filled every year by direct recruitment.

Agreement To Sell With Landlord Doesn't By Itself End Tenancy Or Turn Tenant's Possession Into Part Performance: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia and 2 others vs. Suresh Kapoor and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 723

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 723

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a tenant enters into an agreement to purchase the tenanted property from his landlord, the mere execution of the agreement does not bring the tenancy to an end, nor does it make the tenant's possession one in part performance of the agreement under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

It held that the tenant must prove that the tenancy was expressly or impliedly surrendered and that his possession thereafter flowed from the agreement to sell.

Non-Disclosure Of Previous Cancelled Appointment No Ground To Annul Later Appointment Secured On Genuine Qualifications: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 724

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 724

The Allahabad High Court has held that an appointment obtained on the strength of genuine qualifications cannot be cancelled merely because the appointee did not disclose that an earlier appointment of his had been cancelled, where that fact had no bearing on his eligibility or selection.

It held that such non-disclosure can justify cancellation only if a clear and direct link is shown between the omission and the securing of the appointment.

Urban Ceiling Act | Original Landowner Did Not Challenge Dispossession, Heirs Can't Seek Relief After 22 Years: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Harpal and 4 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 725

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 725

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the original tenure holder was dispossessed under Section 10(5) or Section 10(6) of the U.P. Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and took no steps against the dispossession, his legal heirs cannot seek a writ of mandamus for correction of revenue entries or claim the benefit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

It held that failure to object to the dispossession within a reasonable time amounts to waiver of the right to question it.

Deemed Approval Cannot Validate Teacher's Appointment Made In Disregard Of Mandatory Reservation Conditions: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Anil Kumar Chaudhary v. The Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Gorakhpur And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 726

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 726

The Allahabad High Court has held that deeming provision under Rule 10(5)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 cannot be used to validate the appointment of a teacher which was made without following the mandatory reservation conditions attached to the post.

Rules Allowing Claims Tribunal To Withhold Compensation Based On Claimant's Literacy, Financial Condition Violate Article 14: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Ram Naresh Singh and 5 others v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 727

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 727

The Allahabad High Court has held that Rules 5.1 and 5.4.1(i) and (ii) of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990, which allow the Railway Claims Tribunal to release only a part of the awarded compensation and park the rest in fixed deposit depending on the claimant's literacy and financial condition, discriminate between claimants and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Passport Doesn't Give Automatic Right To Travel Abroad; Police Can Apply To Court For Surrender Of Passport: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mohd. Aftab v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 728

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 728

The Allahabad High Court has held that a passport does not guarantee spontaneous passage across border for a person who has criminal cases pending against him. It held that while the grant of passport cannot be denied merely due to pendency of criminal case, the police can apply to court for surrender of passport to prevent the person from leaving the country.

The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,

“The mere grant of a passport does not arm the holder with a spontaneous passage across borders. It requires applications for visas from the host country and also immigration procedures. In the event of the holder of the passport is endeavoring to travel abroad, it is always open to the Police or the other prosecuting agency involved to move the Court for the purpose of requiring the holder of the passport to surrender his passport so as to prevent him from leaving Indian shores.”

No Vigilance Probe Against UP IAS Officer On Complaint Without Affidavit Or State Vigilance Committee Approval: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Abhishek Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 729

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 729

The Allahabad High Court has held that a complaint against a Class-I officer of the State which is not backed by an affidavit, as required by the Government Orders governing complaints against Group-A officers, cannot be made the basis of a vigilance inquiry, particularly when the matter has not been placed before the State Vigilance Committee for approval.

It quashed the vigilance enquiry against an IAS officer on a complaint the complainant later admitted was made under a wrong impression.

Right To Retirement Benefits Accrues From Length Of Service, Not Attached To Post: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Balkrishna Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 730

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 730

The Allahabad High Court has held that the right to retirement benefits flows from the length of service rendered by an employee and is not linked to the post held.

It directed the State to pay pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to a Junior Clerk whose services were terminated in 2000 on the ground that there was no vacant post against which he could have been appointed, noting that he had served for almost 30 years.

Arya Samaj Marriage Certificate Alone Can't Prove Valid Hindu Marriage; Essential Ceremonies Must Be Performed: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Rohit Pandey vs. Union of India Thru.Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs and 3 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 731

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 731

The Allahabad High Court has observed that merely producing a marriage certificate issued by an Arya Samaj Mandir cannot establish that a valid marriage was solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court said that the essential ceremonies prescribed for a Hindu marriage must be performed.

A bench of Justice Rajeev Singh observed thus while quashing the removal of an officer of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) who had been removed from service on the ground that he had made a false declaration about his marital status.

Interfaith Same-Sex Couple Has Fundamental Right To Live Together In Peaceful Live-In Relationship: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Farida Ansari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 732

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 732

The Allahabad High Court has observed that an interfaith same-sex couple has a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to live together in a peaceful live-in relationship, observing that family members, relatives, or other persons cannot interfere with the couple's choice to live together.

A bench of Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary passed the order while dealing with a writ petition filed by a lesbian couple, who sought protection from alleged threats and harassment by private respondents.

Santa Claus Caps Can't Be Forced On Employees At Workplace, May Hurt Sentiments Of Different Faiths: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Vikram Singh @ Vishwa Vikram Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 733

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 733

The Allahabad High Court has cautioned against compelling employees to wear Santa Claus red caps in the workplace, observing that such compulsion may hurt the sentiments of people of different faiths and beliefs.

"…this type of action is not permitted in the democratic system of the country wherein every citizen is free to follow his/her faith and belief", a bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed.

Division Of Cooperative Society Ends Delegates' Status; Retaining Old Name, Registration Number Don't Preserve Eligibility: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Sachin Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 734

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 734

The Allahabad High Court has held that when a cooperative society is divided under Section 126 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the original society also becomes a new body corporate, even if it is allowed to keep its old name and registration number.

It held that upon such division, the delegates of the original society cease to be delegates under Rule 87(ix) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 and cannot continue as members of the Committee of Management of the District Cooperative Bank under Rule 453(1)(h).

Allahabad High Court Orders ₹50K Compensation Over 5-Day Illegal Police Detention, Praises Cops For Candid Admission Of Error

Case Title - Kamlesh Kumar (Corpus) And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 735

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 735

The Allahabad High Court ordered the State Government to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to a man who was kept in illegal police detention for 5 days, from August 15-August 19, 2026, before being produced before the concerned Magistrate.

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order on a habeas corpus petition filed by Kamlesh Kumar, who alleged that he was unlawfully picked up by 2 armed policemen from his medical shop on August 15.

Defection | Tenth Schedule Disqualification Is For Being A Member, Not For Contesting Fresh Election: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Lalitesh Pati Tripathi vs. Dr Vinod Kumar Bind 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 736

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 736

The Allahabad High Court has held that a legislator who voluntarily gives up membership of his political party incurs disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution is only in respect of the House of which he is then a member, and is not thereby barred from contesting an election to Parliament.

It held that Article 102(2) of the Constitution disqualifies such a person only from being a member, and not from being chosen as one.

Urban Land Ceiling Act | Sale Of Surplus Land Rendered Void Under Old Act Can't Be Revived By Repeal Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Wood Row School Society vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 737

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 737

The Allahabad High Court has held that sale of surplus land which has been declared void under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 cannot be revived by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

Section 10(4) of the Act deems any transfer of excess vacant land made during this period to be null and void. Noting that the Repeal Act is silent on such transfers, the Court applied Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, under which a repeal does not affect the previous operation of the repealed enactment.

Tenant's Plea That Possession Was Never Delivered Requires Evidence; Can't Reject Rent Case Under Order 7 Rule 11: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Hem Chand vs. M/s Padmawati Pvt Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738

The Allahabad High Court has held that a tenant's plea that possession was never handed over under an executed rent deed, and that no landlord-tenant relationship therefore came into existence, raises a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,

“The plea of non-delivery of possession raised by the petitioner falls in the latter category. If established, the plea may have a bearing upon the respondent's entitlement to succeed in the rent proceedings. Its determination, however, would necessarily involve an examination of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the rent deed, the conduct of the parties and such other material as may properly be brought on record. The possibility that the defence may ultimately succeed cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. when the respondent's case, as pleaded, discloses the factual basis of the relief claimed.”

'Falsely Implicated': Allahabad High Court Quashes Case Against 2 Over Nizamuddin Markaz Visit During COVID-19

Case Title - Faizan And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 739

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 739

The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two persons who were booked after allegedly visiting the Nizamuddin Markaz in Delhi during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court observed that they were "falsely implicated" on the basis of "presumption and assumption".

Does Divorce On Ground Of Desertion Bar A Wife From Claiming Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC? Allahabad High Court Answers

Case Title - Suneeta vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 740

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 740

The Allahabad High Court has held that a divorced woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her former husband even where the divorce was granted on the ground of her desertion, provided she has not remarried and is unable to maintain herself.

A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made the observation while allowing a criminal revision filed by a woman whose maintenance claim had been rejected by the Family Court, Sultanpur.

UP Police Recruitment | Non-Disclosure Of Pending Criminal Case Not Suppression Where Form Only Asked About Conviction: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Raju Gangwar vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 741

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 741

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the online application form for police recruitment only required a candidate to declare that he had never been convicted, his failure to disclose a pending criminal case cannot by itself be treated as a false declaration or deliberate suppression.

It held that cancellation of candidature on such ground must reflect consideration of the factors laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and an order merely reciting the criminal case is arbitrary.

Doctors Can't Evade Mandatory Govt Service Bond After Subsidized PG Education, But Must Get Counselling Opportunity: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Dr. Aparupa Sen Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education Anubhag 4 Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 742

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 742

The Allahabad High Court has held that a doctor who pursues postgraduate medical education at a government institution at subsidized rates cannot escape a compulsory government service bond merely because of administrative delays in offering a posting after completing the education.

At the same time, the Court held that a doctor cannot be denied the opportunity to participate in the mandatory counselling process for allocation of government service

Allahabad High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer Facing FIR Over Allegedly Fake Law Degree

Case Title - Gaurang Brijvasi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 743

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 743

The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to a lawyer facing an FIR over an allegedly fake law degree. The Court observed that the mere fact that the degree was returned 'unverified' from the University was not sufficient, at the prima facie stage, to establish that the document was forged.

A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla passed the order while hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by one Gaurang Brijvasi in connection with an FIR registered under BNS for the offences of Cheating and Forgery.

UP Revenue Code | Examination Of Revenue Officials Not Mandatory Unless State Adopts Rishi Pal Singh Guidelines: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Gorakhnath Dubey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 744

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 744

The Allahabad High Court has held that the guidelines laid down by its bench in Rishi Pal Singh v. State of U.P. for proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are not mandatory unless adopted by the State, and an eviction order cannot be assailed merely because they were not followed.

Relying on the Coordinate Bench decision in Shahban v. State of U.P., the Court held that such proceedings are to be decided as per the procedure under the Code and the Rules framed thereunder.

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC | Closure Of Evidence Doesn't Prevent Court From Allowing Additional Documents At Final Arguments: Allahabad High Court

Case Title - Km. Mona Shukla and 4 others vs. Gyanendra Katiyar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 745

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 745

The Allahabad High Court has held that the mere fact that evidence has been closed and the suit has reached the stage of final arguments does not by itself bar a court from granting leave under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to bring additional documents on record.

It held that such a late request calls for closer scrutiny, but the court must also examine whether the delay was bona fide, whether the document is relevant and whether any prejudice to the other side can be cured by safeguards.

Employee Can't Be Expected To Disprove Charges In Departmental Enquiry; Management Must First Prove Misconduct: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mangnoo Jha v. Punjab National Bank Through Chairman Cum Managing Director

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 746

The Allahabad High Court has held that in a departmental enquiry, the burden is on the management to first establish the charges and the foundational facts on which they rest, and the delinquent employee cannot be required to disprove allegations that have not been proved against him.

The Court set aside the dismissal of a Punjab National Bank officer whose charges were premised on his having worked as System Administrator, a fact which the Bank had failed to prove even before a civil court.

Allahabad High Court Acquits Mother Sentenced To Death For Killing 3 Children, Finds Child Witness's Testimony 'Tutored'

Case Title - Priyanka vs. State of U.P. and Another and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 747

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 747

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a mother who was sentenced to death for killing her three children while stating that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court found that the testimony of the 8-year-old surviving child witness suffered from "irreconcilable contradictions" and exhibited "clear hallmarks of tutoring".

Allahabad High Court Acquits Woman, Alleged Paramour In Husband's Murder Case; Says CDR Can't Alone Prove Accused Was With Deceased

Case title - Shahrukh vs State of UP and connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 748

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 748

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a woman and her alleged paramour in a murder case involving her husband, holding that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence connecting them with the crime.

A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside the judgment of the trial court, which had convicted Hasnera alias Shabana and Shahrukh for the murder of Hasnera's husband, Naeem, and sentenced both to life imprisonment.

Allahabad High Court Allows 'The Wire' Editor Siddharth Varadarajan To Travel To US; Notes Trial Yet To Begin In FIRs Lodged In 2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 749

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) today permitted 'The Wire' editor Siddharth Varadarajan to travel to New York, USA, in connection with his scheduled programme.

Varadarajan remains on anticipatory bail in criminal cases arising from a 2020 report and tweets concerning Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

State Can't Cancel Finalised Tender Due To Its Own Error In Mentioning Performance Bank Guarantee: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: M/S Yuvaan Infotech Thru. Partner Ritvik Pandey v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 750

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 750

The Allahabad High Court has held that a tendering authority cannot cancel a tender at an advanced stage merely because it had wrongly fixed the Performance Bank Guarantee (ePBG) in the bid document. It held that the ePBG is a performance security with no bearing on a bidder's eligibility or ranking, and an error in it can be corrected without re-tendering.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held,

“Correcting the percentage upward, at the tendering authority's own admitted error, and at the volunteered instance of the petitioner, does not touch the essential fabric of the selection process. It is, in essence, curing an error of the author of the tender document, not amending a term that shaped the competitive field.”

Employer Can't Convert Duly Selected Employee Against Sanctioned Post Into 'Perpetual Contractual Employee' By Nomenclature: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Through Special Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sece 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 751

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 751

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a person is selected through an advertisement for a regular vacancy against a sanctioned post under the applicable service rules, the employer cannot later treat him as a contractual employee merely by describing his engagement as ad hoc or contractual in successive orders. It held that an employee who accepts consolidated remuneration out of economic necessity does not thereby give up his statutory right to the prescribed pay scale.

Pregnant Woman Dies In Train Accident; Allahabad High Court Orders Separate ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Loss Of Unborn Child

Case Title - Ashok Kumar And Others vs. Union Of India Thru. General Manager North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 752

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 752

The Allahabad High Court has ordered payment of a separate ₹8 lakh compensation for the loss of an unborn child after a pregnant woman died in a railway accident. The bench reiterated that an unborn child of more than five months in the womb is to be treated as a child in existence for the purpose of compensation.

The Court started that the death of the 7-month-old foetus was an independent loss apart from the death of the mother and consequently directed the Railways to pay an additional ₹8 lakh under the applicable compensation rules.

Seized Vehicle Used By UP Cops For Raid, Later Involved In Fatal Accident; Allahabad High Court Orders DGP Inquiry

Case title - Rahul @ Dharamdev vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 753

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 753

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, to conduct an independent and discreet inquiry into the circumstances in which a vehicle seized in an excise case was taken out of police custody for a police raid and subsequently involved in a fatal accident.

The Court observed that the circumstances surrounding the removal and use of the seized vehicle raised "serious questions", particularly as the vehicle was later involved in an accident in which a woman died.

Can Experience Of Working At 'Punjab National Bank' Be Counted As 'Govt Office' Experience? Allahabad High Court Answers

Case title - Satya Prakash vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 754

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 754

The Allahabad High Court has observed that experience acquired while working in Punjab National Bank (PNB) cannot be counted as experience in a "government office" for the purpose of the specific eligibility condition prescribed in an advertisement for the post of Registrar, Higher Education Department, Government of UP.

A bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak was hearing a writ petition filed by Satya Prakash, whose candidature for the post of Registrar (Higher Education) had been rejected on the ground that his experience did not meet the prescribed eligibility criteria.

Police Officer Can't Be Held 'Negligent' For Failure To Act In Absence Of Information Requiring Action: Allahabad High Court

Case title - Naresh Singh vs. The State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 755

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 755

The Allahabad High Court has held that a police officer cannot be held 'negligent' merely for failing to act when there was no information or intelligence requiring him to take action.

"The Police do act on information. Absence of information leading to omission to act cannot be termed as negligence", a bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice Satya Veer Singh said.

The Court thus set aside a punishment of censure imposed on a police officer who had been held responsible for failing to prevent the subsequent collection of explosives that later caused a fatal explosion.

'Deeply Regrettable': Allahabad High Court Flags Repeated Litigation Over PwBD Eligibility For MBBS, Says Boards Can't Re-Assess Disability

Case Title: Shubham Mishra vs. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, New Delhi And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 756

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 756

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Medical Assessment Board constituted under the National Medical Commission's guidelines for admission of persons with benchmark disabilities to the MBBS course cannot re-determine the percentage of disability already certified under Section 57 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

It held that the Board's mandate is confined to assessing the functional competency of the candidate to pursue the course, and re-quantifying disability is an excess of jurisdiction.

Cow Slaughter Act | Owner Travelling In Vehicle Carrying 80 Kg Beef Can't Escape Confiscation By Pleading Ignorance: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Mohammad Jalaluddin vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 757

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 757

The Allahabad High Court has held that the owner of a vehicle who was himself travelling in it when beef was recovered cannot resist confiscation under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 by pleading that the meat belonged to passengers who had hired the vehicle.

It held that once the seized meat is confirmed to be beef by an authorised laboratory, the presumption under Section 5-A(10) of the Act is attracted against him, and it is for him to displace it by cogent evidence.

NEET-UG | Answer Keys Can't Be Referred To Expert Without Facts Warranting Reference: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Lone Objector's Challenge

Case Title: Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 758

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 758

The Allahabad High Court has held that disputed examination questions and answer options cannot be referred to an expert unless there are facts before the Court warranting such a reference.

Dismissing the writ petition of a NEET-UG 2026 candidate, it held that an objection to the answer keys raised by one candidate, examined and rejected by the National Testing Agency and echoed by no other, did not call for interference.

Senior Citizens Act | Tribunal Can't Declare Gift Deed Void On Ground Of Forgery; Remedy Lies Before Civil Court: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Balveer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 759

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 759

The Allahabad High Court has held that a senior citizen who alleges that a gift deed of his property is a forgery cannot have it declared void by the Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

It held that Section 23(1) of the Act presupposes a valid transfer made on the condition that the transferee will provide the senior citizen basic amenities and basic physical needs, and is attracted only where that condition is broken. It held that a plea that the deed was never executed at all lies before the civil court.

'Pious' Marriage Institution Shouldn't Be Taken Lightly: Allahabad High Court Protects Divorced Couple With 2 Children Who Remarried

Case Title - Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 760

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 760

The Allahabad High Court has protected the peaceful marital life of a divorced couple with two children who subsequently remarried each other. The Court, however, remarked that the "pious institution of marriage should not be taken lightly".

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made the observation while dealing with a petition filed by the couple seeking protection of their peaceful marital life and assistance in registering their marriage.

'Electricity An Indispensable Need To Live': Allahabad High Court Comes To Aid Of Man Denied Connection For Over A Decade

Case Title - Fanindra Das vs. The General Manager and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 761

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 761

The Allahabad High Court observed that electricity is "an indispensable need" in modern times, as it directed the North Eastern Railway to provide an electricity connection to a man who had been forced to live without electricity for more than a decade.

A Bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran observed that the right to life under Article 21 is not confined to merely meeting a person's basic animal needs and includes access to essential civic amenities such as electricity, sanitation, roads, clean surroundings, sufficient light, and pure air and water.

'Cooked-Up Story So Absurd It Can't Be Believed': Allahabad High Court Discharges Congress MP Rakesh Rathore In Rape Case

Case Title - Rakesh Rathore vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 762

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 762

The Allahabad High Court has discharged Congress MP from Sitapur, Rakesh Rathore, in a 2025 rape case, observing that the story "cooked up" by the complainant is so 'absurd' that it cannot be believed by any person of ordinary prudence.

The Court added that the prosecution material indicated a "long term consensual extra-marital relationship between two married persons of matured ages".

Hookah Bars Can't Operate In UP Even In Designated Smoking Areas: Allahabad High Court Says 'Right To Clean Air' Overrides Right To Trade

Case title - M/s Aftek Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Auth. Signatory Vishnu Kumar Gupta and another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Admin. U.P. Lko. and others and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 763

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 763

The Allahabad High Court has held that hookah bars cannot operate in Uttar Pradesh and hookah services can not be provided even in "Designated Smoking Areas".

The Court stressed that the right of non-smokers to breathe clean air in a public place cannot be abridged by the commercial interests of an establishment claiming a right to trade.

Can A Dowry Death Case Be Quashed Because Woman Allegedly Died Of Heart Attack? Allahabad High Court Answers

Case Title - Nirmala Devi vs. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 764

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 764

The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash a dowry death case against a mother-in-law, holding that the fact that a woman died from shock resulting from myocardial infarction (heart attack) could not, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof at the quashing stage that her death was purely natural.

A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash observed that where a young woman dies within seven years of marriage amid specific allegations of dowry-related cruelty or harassment, it cannot automatically be presumed at the initial stage that her death was purely natural merely because the medical opinion attributes it to myocardial infarction.

Before Shifting Minor's Custody Over Disrupted Schooling, Court Must Explore If Studies Can Continue Without Changing Custody: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : V v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 765

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 765

The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order handing over custody of a ten-year-old girl to her father, holding that where the only reason for shifting custody was the interruption of the child's schooling, the Court was first required to examine whether her studies could continue while she remained with her mother, particularly when the child had said she wished to live with the mother.

Motor Accident | Insurance Policy Mentioning '1+1' Covers Driver, Passenger Despite RC Showing Single Seat: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Manager/Asstt. Manager vs. Smt. Vijay Kumari and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 766

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 766

The Allahabad High Court has held that an insurance company which issued a policy recording the seating capacity of a tractor as “1+1” and received premium on that basis cannot afterwards deny liability for the death of a passenger by relying on the registration certificate, which showed the seating capacity as one person.

Ad Hoc Appointee Cannot Be Directly Confirmed In Service Without Going Through Statutory Regularization: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Rama Shankar Yadav and others v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Revenue and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 767

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 767

The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee appointed on an ad hoc basis cannot be directly confirmed in service. It held that a confirmation order which is not traceable to any recruitment, service or regularization rules is void ab initio and confers no legally enforceable right.

UP Tenancy Act | Sixty-Day Timeline To Decide Rent Case Is Directory, Not Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Smt. Smita Wadhawan vs. Smt Rani Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 768

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 768

The Allahabad High Court has held that the sixty-day timeline for disposal of cases by the Rent Authority and the Rent Tribunal under Section 33(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 is directory and not mandatory in nature.

Section 33(2) of the Act requires the Rent Authority or the Rent Tribunal to endeavour to dispose of a case as expeditiously as possible and within not more than sixty days of receipt of the application or appeal, and its proviso requires written reasons to be recorded where that does not happen.

S. 125 CrPC | Both Parents Must Contribute To Child's Maintenance As Per Means; Earning Mother Can't Disclaim Duty: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Archana Rao and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 769

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 769

The Allahabad High Court has held that the responsibility for maintaining a minor child cannot be fastened exclusively on either parent, observing that both parents are ordinarily required to contribute towards the child's maintenance according to their respective means and financial capacity.

The Court further held that an earning mother cannot altogether disclaim her responsibility to contribute towards the maintenance and other expenses of her children, particularly where her income is higher than that of the father.

PDS Godown | 20% Rent Hike Ceiling Can't Be Applied Indirectly Where Government Order Held Inapplicable: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Sudha Agarwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food And Civil Supply, U.P. Lucknow And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 770

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 770

The Allahabad High Court has held that an authority which itself holds a government order inapplicable to a party cannot then fix rent on the strength of justification certificates founded on the very clause of that order. It held that what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.

Clause 14 of the Government Order dated 02.05.2018 caps enhancement of rent at 20% of the previously sanctioned rent or the amount recommended in the justification certificate, whichever is less. In an earlier round of litigation in the petitioner's own case, a coordinate Bench had read the clause as applying to godowns taken on rent with effect from 14.07.2015.

Police Station CCTV Not Working? Allahabad High Court Lays Down Safeguards For Persons Arrested, Brought For Interrogation

Case Title : Raghvendra Dubey And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 771

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 771

The Allahabad High Court has laid down safeguards for the police to follow when CCTV surveillance at a police station is not functioning. The Court directed that details of persons brought to the station for interrogation or arrested must be recorded contemporaneously in the General Diary (GD).

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev clarified that once a CCTV system is functional within a police station, it must remain operational "24/7 X 365 days".

'Who Judges The Judge?': Allahabad High Court Calls For Recalibration Of CJ-Centric Administration, Greater Institutional Accountability

Case Title : Pappu Met @ Pappu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 772

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 772

The Allahabad High Court has called for a 'recalibration' of the Chief Justice-centric model of High Court administration as it emphasized the need for a more deliberative, institutionally balanced and participative approach, coupled with stronger institutional accountability.

A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar made this observation in a judgment arising from four cases in which it flagged issues like delays in the subordinate judiciary, non-compliance with directions on bail and also raised broader questions of judicial discipline.

NOMINAL INDEX

Shiv Shankar Singh v. Committee of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 638

The State Bank of India and 5 others vs. Priyanshu Arya and 39 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 639

Rajendra Kumar And 33 Ors v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 640

Masihunnisa Degree College Thru. Manager Abida Banno And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 641

Achhaibar Singh v. Board of Revenue And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 642

Yadvendra Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 643

Virendra Kumar Manocha And Another vs. Union Of India And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 644

Akriti Chaudhary vs. Union Of India And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 645

Ashok Pandey And Another vs. Sri Rahul Gandhi @ Raul Vinci New Delhi And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 646

Muttliv vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 647

Laxmi Narayan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 648

Vishv Jaat Sangh Cheritable And Religious Trust And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 649

Pushpraj Singh @ Babloo vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 650

Budhi Ram And Others vs. Ram Kesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 651

Seema Devi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw AB) 652

Ramesh Upadhyay vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw AB) 653

M/s Jaiswal Foods Thru. Proprietor Sudheer Jaiswal vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Govt. Lko. and 22 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 654

Manish Kumar and 25 Ors. vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Co-Operative Lucknow and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 655

Kanpur Development Authority v. Sri Nathu Lal Gupta And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 656

Sandeep Indrajeet Tiwari vs. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 657

Rohan Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 658

Mahendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 8 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 659

Bhola Prasad vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 661

Seema Ray and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 662

Hamid Khan And 4 Others vs. Jwala Prasad And 13 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 663

Vinod Kumar Malik v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 664

Santosh Singh And Others v. Gajendra Singh And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 665

Arvind Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 666

Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 667

Alakh Prakash Mishra v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 668

Pradeep Kumar Singh and 35 others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 669

Yogendra Singh v. District Inspector of Schools Muzaffarnagar and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 670

Shobhit Kashayap vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Administrative Reform Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 671

Ankit Pathak And 139 Others v. State Of U.P. And 20 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 672

Avdhesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 673

Neha Rao v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 674

Moni Corpus vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 675

Dharmendra Kumar Vishwakarma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 676

Prabhu Singh v. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 677

Kamlesh Prasad and another vs. Prescribed Authority Celing/Addl.Collector Admin.Lko.Andors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 678

Amitabh Thakur Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 679

Umesh Singh and 3 Ors. Objection Filed v. Addl. Commissioner Lucknow and 5 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 680

Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 681

Ganesh Prasad vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 682

Jeetu Soni v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 683

Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan v. Richa Mishra and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 684

Pooja Devi vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Revenue Lko And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 685

2026 LiveLaw (AB) 686

State of U.P. through Secretary and others v. Janmesh Kumar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 687

Shyamji Shukla v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 688

Bhoorey Singh v. Additional Commissioner Judicial-II Aligarh And 8 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 689

Vijay Kumar v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 690

Yadu Sugar Limited v. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 691

Neeraj Maheshwari vs. Shri Narayanlal Dharamshala Trust, Kasganj 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 692

L v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 693

Lady Constable Shivani Joshi and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another and connected matter 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 694

Bhaiya Lal Raidas vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 695

Gayatri Devi v. Smt. Omwati Devi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 696

Lal Bihari Verma vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 697

Zahid Ali vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 698

Mohd. Mustafa Siddiqui v. District Basic Education Officer and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 699

Junaid Alam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 700

Raisi Begum and 2 others v. Javed Anwar and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 701

Imran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 702

Mohd. Anzar Ahmed vs. Principal Secretary Basic Education And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 703

Shashi Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 704

Nanhki @ Naimunnisha vs. State of U.P. and 3 others along with connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 705

Adil @ Seeran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 706

Abhishek Tyagi vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Dwara Grah Sachiv And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 707

Ayush Malik And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 708

Mubarak Ali vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 709

Shri Saryu Nagar Vikas Samiti Thru. President Sri Awadhesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 710

Princy Thru. Her Husband Gurpreet Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 711

Smt. Kamla Devi And Others v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 712

Chandrakanta vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 713

Karan Singh Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 714

Sanjay Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 715

Bhavna Pandit vs. State of U.P. and 16 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 716

Anil Mithas vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 717

Babboo Shah vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 718

Anuj Kumar Tiwari @Gulu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 719

Neha Mishra vs. Reserve Bank Of India Thru. Governor Central Office Building Mumbai And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 720

Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 721

Ajay Singh Yadav and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 722

Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia and 2 others vs. Suresh Kapoor and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 723

Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 724

Harpal and 4 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 725

Anil Kumar Chaudhary v. The Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Gorakhpur And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 726

Ram Naresh Singh and 5 others v. Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 727

Mohd. Aftab v. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 728

Abhishek Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Deptt. of Appointment and Personnel Lko. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 729

Balkrishna Sharma v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 730

Rohit Pandey vs. Union of India Thru.Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs and 3 Other 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 731

Farida Ansari And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 732

Vikram Singh @ Vishwa Vikram Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 733

Sachin Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 734

Kamlesh Kumar (Corpus) And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 735

Lalitesh Pati Tripathi vs. Dr Vinod Kumar Bind 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 736

Wood Row School Society vs. State Of UP And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 737

Hem Chand vs. M/s Padmawati Pvt Ltd 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 738

Faizan And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 739

Suneeta vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 740

Raju Gangwar vs. State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 741

Dr. Aparupa Sen Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education Anubhag 4 Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 742

Gaurang Brijvasi vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 743

Gorakhnath Dubey vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 744

Km. Mona Shukla and 4 others vs. Gyanendra Katiyar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 745

Mangnoo Jha v. Punjab National Bank Through Chairman Cum Managing Director 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 746

Priyanka vs. State of U.P. and Another and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 747

Shahrukh vs State of UP and connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 748

2026 LiveLaw (AB) 749

M/S Yuvaan Infotech Thru. Partner Ritvik Pandey v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 750

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Through Special Secy. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sece 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 751

Ashok Kumar And Others vs. Union Of India Thru. General Manager North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 752

Rahul @ Dharamdev vs. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 753

Satya Prakash vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 754

Naresh Singh vs. The State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 755

Shubham Mishra vs. Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, New Delhi And 10 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 756

Mohammad Jalaluddin vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 757

Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 758

Balveer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 759

Nitin Mishra v. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 760

Fanindra Das vs. The General Manager and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 761

Rakesh Rathore vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 762

M/s Aftek Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Auth. Signatory Vishnu Kumar Gupta and another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Admin. U.P. Lko. and others and connected matters 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 763

Nirmala Devi vs. State of UP and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 764

V v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 765

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Manager/Asstt. Manager vs. Smt. Vijay Kumari and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 766

Rama Shankar Yadav and others v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Revenue and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 767

Smt. Smita Wadhawan vs. Smt Rani Singh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 768

Archana Rao and 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 769

Sudha Agarwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food And Civil Supply, U.P. Lucknow And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 770

Raghvendra Dubey And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 771

Pappu Met @ Pappu vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 772