The Allahabad High Court said that threatening someone from approaching the court is a serious criminal contempt and the “biggest impediment” to justice.

The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Amit Singh Parihar alleging illegal felling of government trees in Fatehpur. In a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner claimed that respondent no. 9, Narendra Singh, assaulted his family and threatened them to withdraw the PIL.

The court directed respondent no. 9 to appear on August 13 and ordered the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, to file an affidavit addressing allegations of police manipulation.

[Amit Singh Parihar V State of U.P. & 8 Others]

The Allahabad High Court ruled that an estranged wife, even if omitted as a nominee in pension records, is entitled to receive family pension after her husband's death, overriding claims by sons listed as nominees.

Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, in the case of Urmila Singh, determined that statutory family pension is a legal right for the surviving spouse and not a charitable benefit. 

The court highlighted that the sons' age and apparent earning status made them ineligible, while the wife, aged 62, was reliant on a maintenance order and fulfilled the legal requirements. 

Authorities were directed to release the family pension to the wife.

[Urmila Singh v State of U.P. & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court has commuted the death sentence awarded to a man for raping and murdering his minor cousin, replacing it with life imprisonment for 25 years without remission.

The trial court had earlier found him guilty under Sections 302 and 376AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. While upholding the conviction, the High Court ruled that the case did not meet the threshold of being “incorrigible” or a “menace to society” to justify capital punishment.

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the offence but cited mitigating factors to reduce the sentence.

[Bantu @ Shiv Shankar v State of U.P.]

The Allahabad High Court has quashed an illegal blacklisting order issued by the Unnao District Magistrate and imposed ₹1 lakh cost on the DM and ₹25,000 on the District Basic Education Officer for violating principles of natural justice.

The Court found that the order lacked a show-cause notice, did not specify a fixed duration, and was issued despite binding Supreme Court law.

The court held the DM failed to apply his mind and circulated the order statewide without legal justification, while the Education Officer offered a timely apology. The blacklisting order was set aside on grounds of procedural unfairness and proportionality under Articles 14 and 21.

[M/S Cropscare Infotech Pvt. Ltd. v State Of U.P]

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that interfaith marriages without proper religious conversion are illegal under current law.

The court rejected a petition to dismiss criminal charges against a man accused of abducting and marrying a minor in an Arya Samaj temple.

Justice Prasant Kumar directed a senior police officer to investigate Arya Samaj temples issuing unauthorized marriage certificates.

The court noted that under the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, interfaith marriages require a lawful conversion. The next hearing is set for August 29. Allegations of document fabrication and child marriage are also under scrutiny.

The Allahabad High Court has held that teachers and headmasters in institutions under the U.P. Basic Education Board do not qualify as “employees” under Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, 1972, and are thus ineligible for its benefits.

The Court clarified that their appointments and service conditions, including gratuity, are governed solely by the U.P. Basic  Education Teacher Service Rules, 1981, and relevant government orders.

Since the petitioner retired at 64, exceeding the state’s 60-year limit, he was deemed ineligible.

The Court affirmed that state-specific schemes take precedence over the central Gratuity Act for such teachers and dismissed the appeal. [Bindra Prasad Patel v. State Of UP and 3 Others]

The Allahabad High Court held that any eligible candidate seeking a compassionate appointment must execute an irrevocable affidavit undertaking to financially support other dependents of the deceased employee.

Justice Ajay Bhanot emphasized that the appointee “steps into the shoes of the deceased” and assumes the responsibility to maintain the remaining dependents.

In a case where the deceased’s wife and mother contested the benefit, the Court held that family disputes cannot frustrate compassionate appointments.

The Court directed equitable resource-sharing and found the petitioner eligible, since she voluntarily undertook to give 20% of her salary to the deceased's mother. [Smt. Naina Gupta v. Union of India and 4 Others]

The Allahabad High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of negligence in a 2007 case involving the death of a foetus.

The Court strongly criticised private hospitals, saying many treat patients like “ATMs” to extract money, prioritising profit over care.

The Court noted a 4 to 5 hour delay between consent for a C-section and the actual surgery, allegedly due to the absence of an anaesthetist.

The Court held that such delay and lack of basic facilities indicate negligence, and legal protection applies only to doctors who exercise due skill, not those running ill-equipped clinics. (Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai vs. State of U.P. and Another)

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has quashed 178 orders by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board that imposed environmental compensation on various parties.

The Court held that the Board lacks adjudicatory powers and can only issue administrative directions. 

Justices Attau Rahman Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi ruled that only the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the authority to assess and impose compensation for environmental harm.

The Court opined that the Board must approach the NGT for such relief and called for clearer legislation, as no existing state law grants it the power to penalise independently.

The Allahabad High Court has expressed concern over the harmful effects of television, the internet, and social media on adolescents, noting that it causes an early loss of innocence.

The court made this observation, overturning a decision to try a 16-year-old boy as an adult in a consensual relationship case. It noted the boy’s IQ was only 66, placing his mental age at just six years.

Justice Siddharth observed that the government seems unable to control the "nefarious" effects of technology on young minds due to its uncontrollable nature. 

(Juvenile X vs. State of U.P.)

The Allahabad High Court held that once a marriage is declared null and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, it is considered invalid from the very start, absolving the husband of any maintenance obligations.

In this case, the couple married in 2015 but soon faced marital discord. During bail proceedings in related cases, the wife’s prior subsisting marriage came to light. The husband then obtained a decree of nullity, which the wife unsuccessfully challenged.

Despite this, she was awarded interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. The High Court set aside that order, ruling no marital relationship exists once nullity is declared. 

The Allahabad High Court held that physically handicapped (PH) candidates must have separate cut-off marks at each recruitment stage to ensure proper representation in service. 

The case involved a 100% visually impaired candidate who was denied appointment as Assistant Professor (English), despite ranking 5th after the top candidate declined to join.

Citing the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and Supreme Court judgments like Rekha Sharma and Saurav Yadav, the Court emphasised mandatory 4% reservation and separate waitlists.

The Court held that authorities failed their duty and directed the petitioner’s appointment, affirming that PH candidates are a distinct and protected category in public employment.