Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 27 To February 2, 2025
Sparsh Upadhyay
3 Feb 2025 10:39 AM IST
NOMINAL INDEX Saurabh Saxena v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Skill 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38 Nishant Bhardwaj v. Smt. Rishika Gautam 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 39 Devideen vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 40 Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 41 M/S. Arya Rice Mill v. State Of U.P. And...
NOMINAL INDEX
Saurabh Saxena v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Skill 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38
Nishant Bhardwaj v. Smt. Rishika Gautam 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 39
Devideen vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 41
M/S. Arya Rice Mill v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42
Manorma Tiwari vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Rakesh Rathor vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Thr Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 44
Ashish Kumar Singh vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Personnel And Tranning New Delhi And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Abbas And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 46
Mridul Madhok vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Sushil Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 48
Rekha v. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 49
Hari Shankar vs. Rakesh Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 50
Sarvajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Prof. Syed Shafeeque Ahmad Ashrafi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 52
Krishnawati Devi And 06 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Saurabh Saxena v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Skill 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38 [SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 10 of 2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 38
The Allahabad High Court has held that the question of equivalence of qualification for eligibility and employment is to be decided by the employer and the same cannot be interpreted by the Courts to treat any qualification to be equivalent to qualifications.
The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that
“the question of equivalence of qualification in the matter of examining the eligibility for the purpose of employment, is to be decided by the employer and the Courts cannot treat any qualification to be equivalent to the qualifications prescribed in the Rules and mentioned in the advertisement.”
Case Title: Sri Nishant Bhardwaj v. Smt. Rishika Gautam [FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 12 of 2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 39
The Allahabad High Court has held that marriage between two Hindus cannot be dissolved within one year of marriage on grounds of mutual incompatibility, unless there is exceptional hardship or exception depravity as provided under Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The parties had filed for mutual dissolution of marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. However, the same was rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur on grounds that minimum period for moving the application as provided under Section 14 of the Act, had not elapsed.
Case title - Devideen vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 40
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 40
The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to a man booked under the POCSO Act, Indian Penal Code and Dowry Prohibition Act on the allegations of harassing his wife (complainant/informant) for dowry as well as for enticing away her minor sister and subjecting her to aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh remarked that the accused's alleged conduct is not only a breach of the sacred bond of marriage but also an egregious violation of familial trust and moral integrity.
Case Title: Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 41 [APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 453 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 41
In a plea to expedite a 14-year-old criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Registry to register a PIL pertaining to the creation of courts in the trial judiciary, and place it before the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.
Justice Rajeev Singh held that, “this Court is of the view that the issue related to the creation of 9149 courts is related to interest of public at large and, therefore, the Registry is directed to register the PIL as a separate case and place it before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate direction.”
Case Title: M/S. Arya Rice Mill v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42 [WRIT - C No. - 41517 of 2024]
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 42
The Allahabad High Court has held that as per Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal cannot be challenged after submission of defence and that the arbitral tribunal is empowered to adjudicate on its own jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held
“Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for challenge to the jurisdictional authority of the Arbitral Tribunal. In terms of sub-section (2) thereof, a plea that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction should be raised not later than the submission of the defence. If the excess of jurisdiction crops up during the proceedings, the objection should be made at that very time. In any case, objection on the question of jurisdiction has to be made before the arbitral tribunal itself, and the arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction.”
Case title - Manorma Tiwari vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 43
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 43
In a scathing observation, the Allahabad High Court recently slammed a litigant (petitioner) who moved the court against the swift proceedings in a case under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir observed that it was ironic that while social media and public platforms often criticize the judiciary for prolonged court proceedings and frequent adjournments, a member of the same public when appearing as a litigant, was objecting to swift court proceedings.
Case title - Rakesh Rathor vs. The State Of U.P. Thru. Thr Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 44
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 44
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) refused the anticipatory bail plea filed by Congress's Member of Parliament from Sitapur Lok Sabha constituency, Rakesh Rathore, in connection with an FIR against him over allegations of sexually exploiting a 35-year-old woman.
However, a bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan disposed of his plea at the admission stage, giving him the liberty to appear/surrender before the trial Court within two weeks and file his regular bail application, taking all pleas and grounds available to him.
Case title - Ashish Kumar Singh vs. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Personnel And Tranning New Delhi And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 45
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 45
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea as withdrawn, challenging Swatantra Prakash Gupta's appointment as the State Information Commissioner.
The PIL plea, filed by the petitioner in person, Ashish Kumar Singh, challenged Gupta's appointment as the SIC, contending that it violates Section 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a provision that bars the pursuit of any profession by an appointee.
Case title - Abbas And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 46
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 46
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the statement made by a rape survivor under Section 164 CrPC before the Magistrate stands on a high pedestal, and a sanctity is attached to such statement recorded during the course of the investigation than that of her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC by the Investigating Officer.
A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra made this observation while dismissing a criminal revision plea filed challenging an order of the Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, wherein the protest petition filed by the revisionist (informant) against the final (closure) report submitted by the police against a rape accused had been dismissed, and the final report had been accepted.
Case title - Mridul Madhok vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 47
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 47
The Allahabad High Court rejected a writ petition moved by YouTuber and Instagram influencer Mridul Madhok seeking quashing of an FIR lodged against him over allegations of body shaming, defaming and making false claims regarding fitness influencer Kopal Agarwal.
Observing that a cognizable offence was found to have been committed by Madhok after perusing the impugned FIR, the court rejected his petition.
Case title - Sushil Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 48
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 48
The Allahabad High Court observed that the Presiding Officer sitting in the Trial Court while recording the evidence must not act like a spectator and tape recorder and must actively participate in the court proceedings.
The court added that if any witness is declared hostile by the prosecution, the court itself must ask relevant questions to the witness, and if it finds sufficient grounds, it must proceed against such witness in accordance with law.
Case Title: Smt. Rekha v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25993 of 2024]
Case Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 49
While hearing a bail plea of an accused mother living with her minor son in prison, the Allahabad High Court has issued several directions to various state authorities regarding the protection and welfare of children who are living with parents lodged in prisons.
Stressing their right to education and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Justice Ajay Bhanot observed that
“Prison walls cannot obstruct the onrush of the fruits of Article 21 for children.”
Case Title: Hari Shankar vs. Rakesh Kumar 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 50 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15637 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 50
The Allahabad High Court has held that a son has every right to be in business independent of his father and the father's request for release of the rented shop so his son can start an independent business is a bona fide need, justifying the tenant's eviction.
Justice Ajit Kumar held that “if the son has been doing business with his father, he has every right to get settled independently in a business and father is absolutely justified in setting up a need for the release of the shop in question to settle his son.”
Case Title: Sarvajeet Singh vs. State of U.P. 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 51 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41474 of 2024]
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 51
While granting bail to a man accused of murder, the Allahabad High Court observed that it was regrettable that the applicant was kept in prison for more than 7 years without the trail ending anytime soon. It was held that such detention was unjust and unwarranted.
Justice Krishan Pahal held,
“Keeping the applicant in custody under these circumstances, when there is no realistic possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future, is both unjust and unwarranted. Justice demands that the applicant's continued detention be reconsidered, and appropriate relief be granted without delay.”
Case Title: Prof. Syed Shafeeque Ahmad Ashrafi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education And 3 Others
Case Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 52
The Allahabad High Court quashed a Government Order to the extent it denied gratuity to teachers who opted to continue beyond their age of retirement, citing primacy of statute over executive fiat.
Petition was filed challenging Clause 4(1) of G.O. dated 22.06.2018 as well as communication of rejection of claim for gratuity to the petitioner. By said G.O., gratuity was denied ostensibly due to teachers working for additional years, which entitled them to more service benefits.
Case title - Krishnawati Devi And 06 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53
The Allahabad High Court observed that in many cases, to harass the husband's family or the person in a domestic relationship, the aggrieved party implicates relatives who have never lived with them in the shared household.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Deshwal added that while issuing notice under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the courts must look into whether the person who is being implicated is living or ever lived with the aggrieved person in a shared household.