The Allahabad High Court has denied bail to a man who was convicted for disrespecting the national flag. The Court, while making its decision, observed that people who insult the tricolour deserve no sympathy.

It further observed that the flag is a symbol of pride and patriotism and represents the hope and aspirations of the people of the country. Therefore, it is the duty of each citizen to protect their dignity.'

The man was booked for posting objectionable and anti-national posts on his social media and was arrested in June.

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the Pollution Control Board has the jurisdiction to impose environmental compensation while dealing with a case under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

The Bench relied on the cases of Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action etc. v Union of India and others, and Delhi Pollution Control Committee v Lodhi  Property Company Ltd., where the SC correlated the power of the State Government with that of the Central Government to issue directions to a polluting industry to pay a certain amount of compensation and carry out remedial measures.

[M/S Ramesh Dyeing And Washing, Ghaziabad Thru Proprietor Ramesh Chand V State Of U.P.]

The Allahabad High Court pulled up GST officials for disregarding binding precedents while initiating proceedings under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the GST Act. J

Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that while citizens are expected to know only general law, officers must follow higher court rulings to prevent arbitrary action and judicial chaos.

The Court directed the Principal Secretary (Institutional Finance), Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit and mandated the creation of a structured system to keep officers updated on judicial pronouncements.

The court mandates that officers undergo regular legal training and adhere to judicial directives to uphold constitutional governance.

[Rajdhani Udyog v. State of U.P. & Ors]

The Allahabad High Court has taken suo motu cognisance of allegations that Uttar Pradesh police assaulted law students protesting at Shri Ramswaroop University in Barabanki.

The bench relied on video evidence and media reports indicating the use of excessive force against students demonstrating over administrative issues.

Notices have been issued to the state government and police, with the court stressing the importance of safeguarding democratic rights and ensuring accountability for unwarranted violence.

The matter has been adjourned to September 12, allowing the petitioner to implead the University as a respondent in the case.

The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to an aide of gangster-politician Mukhtar Ansari in a 2011 murder case (Usri Chatti incident), while sharply criticizing the police for filing a second FIR 22 years after the original crime.

The court noted that the delayed FIR appeared to be an afterthought and an abuse of process, lacking fresh evidence or justification.

Hence, the court emphasizes the prohibition against duplicate FIRs for the same offense, ensuring legal safeguards against harassment. 

The accused was directed not to tamper with evidence, pressure witnesses, or fail to regularly appear before the trial court.

[Munni vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.]

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that every 'One Time Settlement' (OTS) scheme is time-bound and that a borrower has no right to seek an extension beyond the time period mentioned under the scheme.

While dealing with a case where the petitioners had failed to comply with the time-period requirements, the Court held that the Bank cannot be held at fault for cancelling the OTS provided to the petitioners if they do not make the repayment within the prescribed time limit.

It further noted that third-party obligations were already created and that there was no reason to undo the bona fide actions of the Bank.

[M/S Jaharveer Maharaj Agro Pvt. v UOI]

A lawyer from Azamgarh has filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Allahabad High Court, challenging unauthorised law courses offered by Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University (SRMU), Barabanki, without valid Bar Council of India (BCI) recognition.

The PIL seeks directions to authorities to tighten norms, ensure only BCI-approved institutions admit law students, mandate fee refunds for affected students, and constitute a state-level inspection committee.

The petitioner also challenges the BCI’s provisional and retroactive approval of SRMU’s programs, calling it arbitrary and beyond statutory authority.

The Court has issued notice to the State and BCI in the plea, a systemic probe into legal education standards in UP.

The Central Government notifies the appointment of two advocates as judges of the Allahabad High Court.

The names cleared are Amitabh Kumar Rai and Rajiv Lochan Shukla, recommended by the Collegium on March 25.

The Allahabad High Court currently has 85 judges, including Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, against a sanctioned strength of 160. The shortage continues to be a concern for the court’s heavy caseload.

Recently, the Collegium recommended 26 names for appointment to the High Court, including 14 judicial officers and 12 advocates, among them 4 women.

The Allahabad High Court reserved its verdict on a plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. He challenges a revisional court’s order that revived a request to register an FIR against him.

Challenging a Varanasi sessions court order that revived a plea for an FIR, his lawyer argued only “25 stray words” were picked, ignoring the full speech. The case relates to remarks allegedly made by Gandhi about the Sikh community during an event in the United States in 2024.

Gandhi stressed he neither targeted the government nor supported Pakistan or terrorists. The case stems from remarks on Sikhs’ right to wear turbans and visit gurdwaras.

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has rejected a petition filed by JY Shukla and others seeking to halt the release of Jolly LLB 3.

The petitioners argued that the film’s trailer and the song “Bhai Vakeel Hai” demean the legal profession and judiciary.

After reviewing all three official teasers and the song’s lyrics, the court, comprising Justices Sangeeta Chandra and Brij Raj Singh, found nothing objectionable to justify judicial intervention.

They also emphasised the film's CBFC certification and held that speculative apprehensions about its impact were not legally sustainable. The plea has been dismissed, clearing the film’s path to release.

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that in case of a discrepancy between the English and Hindi versions of legal texts, the English version shall prevail, as mandated by Article 348 of the Constitution.

The ruling came in a case where conflicting translations of a statute created ambiguity in interpretation.

The court emphasised that Article 348 establishes English as the authoritative language for all legislation, ensuring uniformity and preventing confusion in legal enforcement.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner sought to rely on the Hindi version of the rules.

[Maya Mishra v Secy]

The Allahabad High Court quashed the cancellation of Anganwadi worker Kumari Sonam’s appointment, holding that her jethani (brother’s wife), who lived in a different house without a common kitchen, could not be treated as part of the same family.

Authorities had cancelled Sonam’s selection, citing a government order that bars more than one woman from the same family from being appointed in a single Anganwadi centre.

Justice Ajit Kumar ruled that “family” under this rule means members sharing residence and kitchen.

Since Sonam’s sister-in-law lived separately, her removal was illegal. The Court ordered reinstatement with arrears.

[Kumari Sonam v State of U.P.]

The Allahabad High Court expressed serious concerns about male gym trainers coaching female clients without adequate safeguards to protect their safety and dignity. The case involves allegations against a male trainer accused of caste-based slurs, physical abuse, and making obscene videos.

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav directed the police to verify if the accused’s gym is registered, whether the accused has been arrested, and if female trainers are employed.

The court will continue hearing the matter on September 8 to ensure proper safety measures for women gym-goers.

[Nitin Saini v State of UP and Another]

The Allahabad High Court has issued a contempt notice to the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing Department, Uttar Pradesh, for once again rejecting a woman employee's maternity leave request on the grounds of a two-year gap between pregnancies.

Justice Ajit Kumar noted that the Court had already struck down this requirement in Guddi v. State of U.P (2022) and reiterated the same in earlier orders quashing similar rejections.

Calling the Director's conduct "unfortunate" and in clear contempt of binding directions, the Court ordered him to appear in person on September 1 to explain why contempt proceedings should not follow.