The Allahabad High Court observed that the perception of judicial delay, often summarized as "Tarikh pe Tarikh," is not the fault of judges alone but stems from systemic failures.

The Court noted that judicial officers face frustration due to insufficient staff, police non-cooperation, and faulty forensic investigations.

The Court highlighted that such delays allow criminals to enter politics, noting many state ministers face criminal charges. Additionally, the Bench revealed that judges face open threats but lack personal security.

The Court directed the State to consider providing security for all judges and urged forensic and police reforms to ensure swift justice.

[Mevalal Prajapati v. State of UP]

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to a Muslim schoolgirl accused of forcing her Hindu classmate to wear a burqa and convert to Islam under the Uttar Pradesh anti-conversion law.

The FIR was lodged by the victim’s brother, alleging that five Muslim classmates pressured the minor student at a tuition centre.

While the State relied on the victim’s statement recorded under the BNSS, the Court observed that no other material existed to establish the accused’s involvement.

Holding that mere allegations without supporting evidence were insufficient, the Court granted relief.

[Malishka @ Malishka Fatma v. State of U.P. & Anr.]

The Allahabad High Court has declined to quash criminal proceedings against two men, Jubair Ansari and Izahar Alam, accused of making "anti-national" Facebook posts targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the RSS.

Justice Saurabh Srivastava observed that the posts prima facie suggested a "deliberate and malicious attempt" to outrage feelings and promote enmity.

The Court noted that the RSS has been "rendering services to society for 100 years" and emphasized that the Prime Minister is elected by the majority.

While acknowledging social media as a tool for expression, the Bench cautioned against its misuse to trigger disharmony or disrupt public order.

[Jubair Ansari & Anr. v. State of UP & Anr.]

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed an appeal by a highly qualified gynaecologist seeking interim maintenance from her neurosurgeon husband during divorce proceedings.

The Bench observed that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not intended to support spouses who voluntarily remain idle to burden their partners.

The Court noted that the wife possessed significant earning potential through her specialized expertise. Emphasizing that where a professional is capable of earning handsomely but refrains from doing so, courts can deny maintenance.

While spousal support was rejected, the husband remains liable for his children's monthly maintenance.

[Dr. Garima Dubey v. Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey]

The Allahabad High Court ruled that constitutional functionaries exercising sovereign functions across the three organs of government must be addressed using the honorific ‘Hon’ble’.

The Bench clarified that this entitlement extends to Union and State Ministers, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, Speakers, and Members of Parliament or State Assemblies.

The Court emphasized that even high-ranking civil servants are excluded from this specific honorific.

The ruling arose after Uttar Pradesh Police failed to use the title for former Union Minister Anurag Thakur in an FIR, a lapse the Court termed a breach of protocol.

[Harshit Sharma & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court criticised banks for arbitrarily freezing customer accounts, holding that they cannot act as investigative agencies.

The case involved a company whose account was frozen after receiving ₹23 lakh via RTGS, with the bank citing suspicion based on mismatch with declared income.

Rejecting this, the Court held that banks cannot independently determine the source of funds or take such action without directions from competent authorities like police or enforcement agencies. It noted that the freeze was not triggered by any official investigation.

The Court also expressed concern over the growing trend of such actions, observing that they disrupt business operations and harm financial stability.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that regular religious congregations on private property are not immune to state regulation.

The Bench clarified that while personal, occasional prayer is protected, organized gatherings involving outsiders can alter a property's use and affect public order.

The Court emphasized that religious freedom under Article 25 is not absolute and must balance with civic order and the rights of others.

Dismissing a plea to offer regular namaz on a site in Sambhal, the Court held that authorities need not wait for an actual disturbance to intervene if an activity has public consequences.

[Aseen v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that withholding an employee's salary after taking work from them violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and constitutes exploitation.

The Court noted that the State cannot deny legitimate dues on "hyper-technical grounds" or take advantage of its own administrative inaction.

The case involved a clerk appointed through a transparent process in anticipation of post-sanctioning. Although the formal sanction remained pending for decades despite reminders, the Court held the appointment was "irregular" but not "illegal."

Directing the State to pay salary and arrears within three months, emphasizing that absence of formal approval cannot justify unpaid labor.

[Sanjay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

The Supreme Court has granted bail to a murder accused who languished in jail for nearly nine years as an undertrial, terming the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to release him as “very shocking.”

The bench held that the High Court failed to protect the petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

The Court observed that the gravity of an offence cannot justify indefinite detention when a trial is unduly delayed.

Criticising the High Court for misconstruing legal precedents to deny relief, the bench granted bail immediately, noting that the infringement of constitutional rights was apparent on the record.

[Vaibhav Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the registration of an FIR against Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi for his remarks regarding the "Indian State."

The Court upheld a trial court’s decision to refuse criminal prosecution in the matter. The controversy arose from a January 2025 speech where Gandhi alleged that the BJP and RSS had captured national institutions, stating the opposition was "fighting the Indian state itself."

A complaint by the Hindu Shakti Dal alleged these remarks were seditious and destabilising.

However, the High Court concurred with the trial court’s assessment that the case lacked sufficient grounds for criminal action.

[Simran Gupta v. Rahul Gandhi]

The Allahabad High Court held that while exercising powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, courts are not required to adjudicate whether claims are barred by limitation.

A division bench of Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abhdesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that such issues can be examined by the arbitral tribunal under Section 16 of the Act, which empowers the tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction.

The Court reiterated that the scope of judicial scrutiny at the arbitrator appointment stage is limited and should primarily focus on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement rather than disputed factual issues.

[Rajendra Prasad Singh v. M/s Arch Construction & Ors.]

The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of dowry death, questioning the Allahabad High Court’s decision to allow his release despite prima facie evidence.

The Bench noted that the deceased woman was found with strangulation marks and external injuries within seven years of marriage.

The Court emphasised that under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, a presumption of dowry death arises in such suspicious circumstances.

Criticising the High Court for passing a non-sustainable order, the bench directed the accused to surrender within a week and ordered the trial to be concluded within one year.

[Siddharth Maurya v. State of Uttar Pradesh]