Ansad Badruddin & Another v. Anti-Terrorist Squad
Date: 10 August 2026
Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:55425-DB
Facts: The appellants had been in custody since February 2021 in a case involving the UAPA, IPC, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act. Despite repeated directions for expeditious trial, the prosecution had examined only a few witnesses and the principal witness had not completed cross-examination.
Issue: Whether prolonged incarceration and unreasonable delay in completing a UAPA trial could justify bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Decision: The Lucknow Bench granted bail, relying upon the constitutional right to speedy trial and the principles laid down in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb. The Court noted that the trial showed little progress despite repeated directions and there was no likelihood of its conclusion soon.
Shiv Narain @ Surya Narain v. State of U.P.
Date: 21 August 2026
Facts: The case arose from the death of a married woman in 1991. The prosecution alleged dowry-related harassment by her husband and in-laws and relied upon evidence concerning the alleged demand for dowry.
Issue: Whether a conviction under Section 304-B IPC could be sustained without establishing that the deceased was subjected to dowry-related cruelty or harassment soon before her death.
Decision: The Lucknow Bench acquitted the accused, holding that the statutory requirement of harassment or cruelty “soon before death” must be established by reliable evidence. Mere evidence of an earlier dowry demand, without establishing the required proximity to death, was insufficient. The judgment reinforces the essential ingredients of dowry-death offences and the prosecution’s burden of proof.
Divya Tripathi @ Divya Mishra v. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Date: 14 August 2026
Facts: PILs were filed seeking effective implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions concerning representation of women advocates in Bar Associations. The Oudh Bar Association had adopted certain reservations, but the petitioners argued that the proposed arrangement did not provide adequate representation.
Issue: Whether the Oudh Bar Association was required to provide meaningful 30% representation to women in its governing bodies and higher office-bearer positions.
Decision: The Court directed 30% reservation for women in the Governing/Executive Council and prescribed a rotation system for various posts, including the President’s post from 2028. It also directed candidates to disclose pending or past criminal cases in nomination forms. The directions were based on the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s Article 142 directions.
Ram Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Others
Date: 10 August 2026
Facts: The petitioner, a convict serving a sentence, sought premature release. A proposal for his release had been forwarded by the jail authorities to the District Magistrate, but the matter was not dealt with in accordance with the applicable premature-release framework.
Issue: Whether the Governor’s power under Article 161 of the Constitution to grant premature release can be exercised arbitrarily or independently of the applicable remission policy and rules.
Decision: The Allahabad High Court held that although the Governor’s power under Article 161 is a constitutional executive power, it is not arbitrary and must operate within the applicable legal framework and remission policy. The Court quashed the adverse decision and directed reconsideration in accordance with law. The judgment emphasizes that constitutional discretion must still satisfy legality and fairness.
Kanti Kumar v. Board of Revenue & Others
Date: 5 August 2026
Case: Writ-B No. 7800 of 1978
Facts: Kanti Kumar claimed rights over agricultural land on the basis of longstanding revenue records. Revenue authorities had relied heavily upon an isolated Khasra entry and a proceeding under Section 145 CrPC while overlooking several continuous Khatauni entries recording his tenure.
Issue: Whether a land-right claim under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 could be decided by relying upon an isolated revenue entry while ignoring the complete chain of records.
Decision: The Court held that the entire chain of relevant revenue records must be considered. A Section 145 CrPC proceeding concerns possession and cannot finally determine title. Finding the revenue authorities’ approach perverse, the Court quashed their orders and restored the earlier decree in Kanti Kumar’s favour.
Dharmwati Devi v. State of U.P. & Others
Date: August 2026
Facts: Dharmwati Devi had received approval for appointment to a Class-IV post on compassionate grounds following her husband’s death in harness. Despite the approval continuing on record, authorities subsequently refused to release her salary and relied upon objections concerning the appointment.
Issue: Whether the State could deny salary by indirectly questioning an appointment whose formal approval had never been withdrawn, cancelled or annulled.
Decision: The Allahabad High Court held that an administrative approval which continues to operate cannot be rendered ineffective merely by withholding its consequential benefits. Since the approval remained valid, the authorities could not deny salary without first lawfully withdrawing or cancelling that approval. The Court also found violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the impugned orders.
Mahendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. & Others
Date: 11 August 2026
Facts: The petitioner was selected for a Group-D/Peon post under the U.P. Recognized Basic Schools Rules, 1984. The District Basic Education Officer’s nominee did not participate in the selection process. Authorities subsequently relied upon the absence of the nominee to deny the petitioner salary despite his selection and continued service.
Issue: Whether the absence of the District Basic Education Officer’s nominee automatically invalidated the selection and justified withholding salary.
Decision: The Court held that the nominee’s absence alone did not vitiate the selection. Where the statutory procedure resulted in deemed approval and the employee had continuously discharged his duties, authorities could not rely upon their own failure to nominate a representative to deny salary. The Court ordered payment of current salary and arrears with 8% interest.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications
Editorial Note: This article has been reviewed by the LegalRath Editorial Team to ensure legal accuracy, editorial quality, and clarity before publication.