The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a married man staying in a live-in relationship with an adult woman by consent does not constitute a criminal offence.

A Division Bench of Justices JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena emphasized that social morality and legal principles must be kept separate, stating that courts are guided by the law rather than public opinion when protecting citizens' rights.

The Court granted protection to a couple facing death threats from the woman's family and restrained the police from arresting them in a kidnapping case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

[Anamika & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

An appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati.

The case involves allegations of sexual abuse of two minor boys at a religious camp in Prayagraj.

The petitioner, Ashutosh Brahmachari, argues that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a mini-trial and questioning the merits of the evidence at the bail stage.

The plea emphasizes that the gravity of POCSO offenses and the potential influence of the accused over witnesses necessitate a stricter application of bail principles.

[Swami Avimukteshwaranand v. State of Uttar Pradesh]

The Allahabad High Court refused to quash a case against a Christian priest accused of hurting religious sentiments.

The priest had allegedly claimed during prayer meetings that Christianity is the only true religion, which offended others. The Court held that making such claims is wrong in a secular country like India, as it shows disrespect towards other religions.

It further observed that such statements can fall under Section 295A IPC, which deals with acts intended to outrage religious feelings.

Since a prima facie case existed, the Court dismissed the plea and allowed the trial to proceed.

The Allahabad High Court has ordered that a 9th-10th century Jain idol be moved to the Central Museum, Prayagraj, following a custody dispute between the Digambar and Shwetambar sects.

The Bench directed the District Magistrate, Etah, to ensure the safe transfer of the idol by April 11, 2026. 

The Court further ordered the museum to form an expert team, including members of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), to study the idol’s iconography and sectarian relevance.

This report is due within three months, as initial assessments regarding the idol's specific sectarian origins remained inconclusive.

[Digambar Jain Sabha & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court ruled that paternity must be clearly established before ordering maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

In this case, a Family Court had directed a man to pay maintenance for a minor girl even though he denied being her biological father.

The High Court noted inconsistencies in medical records and doubts about the circumstances of the child’s birth. It held that biological parentage is central to deciding maintenance claims.

Therefore, the Court set aside the earlier order and directed that a DNA test be conducted to determine paternity before deciding the case again.

The Allahabad High Court held that the right to contest a divorce does not survive after the death of a spouse, emphasising the personal nature of matrimonial proceedings.

The case arose when a woman sought to set aside a 1991 ex parte divorce decree more than three decades later, after her former husband had remarried and passed away.

The Court found such belated proceedings legally unsustainable, particularly as they sought to unsettle settled rights of the second wife and children.

It ruled that matrimonial causes cannot continue against a deceased person, and allowing such claims would create uncertainty in legal and familial relationships.

[Smt. Geeta Rani & Ors v. Smt. Maya Devi & Ors.]

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, emphasizing that stringent laws require strict adherence to statutory procedures.

The Court set aside an Allahabad High Court order after finding that the mandatory "Gang Chart" lacked essential signatures and recommendations from the Nodal Officer and Additional Superintendent of Police.

Holding that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for an act, it must be performed in that manner or not at all.

The Court stated, given the Act’s "perilous nature," rigorous procedural compliance is vital to protect individual liberty. 

[Gabbar Singh @ Devendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court directed Indian Railways to pay ₹8 lakh compensation for the death of a foetus following a fatal train accident involving a pregnant woman.

The Court held that an unborn child aged five months or more is equivalent to a child in existence and possesses protected legal rights.

Clarifying that while the Railways Act does not explicitly mention "foetus," such cases fall under Section 124A as an "untoward incident."

Emphasizing that the loss of a foetus is an independent loss of life, the Bench ruled that claimants are entitled to damages separate from the compensation awarded for the mother's death.

[Shri Sukhnandan v. UOI Thru. General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi]

The Allahabad High Court ordered 24/7 armed security for a man allegedly threatened with property demolition for offering namaz on his private premises.

The Bench warned that any violence against the individual or his property would be prima facie attributed to the State.

The Court noted allegations that police forced the man to sign blank documents under duress. This follows a January ruling clarifying that no State permission is required for religious prayers within private property under Article 25 of the Constitution.

The District Magistrate and SSP of Bareilly are ordered to appear personally on March 23. 

[Tarik Khan v. State of UP & Ors.]

The Allahabad High Court held that marks obtained in public recruitment examinations are not confidential information and can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, without requiring third-party consent.

The Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that marks secured in a public examination relate to a public activity and therefore cannot be treated as private information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

The Court noted that when candidates participate in public recruitment processes, their marks ultimately become part of the merit list and public domain, and disclosing them does not violate privacy.

[UOI Thru G.M. Diesel Locomotive & Anr. v. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & Ors.]

The Supreme Court ruled that an employer must personally pay the penalty for delaying compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, even if the compensation amount is covered by insurance.

The Court clarified that the penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) arises from the employer’s own default and cannot be shifted to the insurance company.

The case arose after an employee died in a work-related accident and compensation was not paid within the statutory period.

While the insurer may pay compensation and interest, the Court held that the penalty must be borne by the employer to ensure timely payment and maintain the deterrent purpose of the law.

The Allahabad High Court held two Uttar Pradesh police officers, the SHO and IO, guilty of contempt for deliberately ignoring repeated directions of a Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The CJM had ordered the officers to produce CCTV footage from the police station to verify allegations of illegal detention, but the officers failed to comply despite several warnings.

The HC emphasised that when performing judicial functions, a judicial officer’s authority prevails over administrative and police authorities.

The Court ordered the officers to remain in custody in court until the rising of the court and directed the State to pay ₹1 lakh compensation for the victim’s illegal three-day detention, recoverable from the officials.

[Sanu @ Rashid v. State of U.P.]

The Allahabad High Court recently held that merely referring to a person by their profession does not automatically attract the SC/ST Act.

The Court clarified that an offence is only made out if such words are used intentionally to humiliate a member of the SC/ST community.

In this case, a woman alleged that her employer used casteist slurs when she demanded her wages for washing clothes. The Court noted a contractual relationship existed, and the term used related to her work.

Consequently, the Court quashed the summons under the SC/ST Act while allowing proceedings for criminal intimidation to continue.

[Harshit @ Honey v. State of U.P. & Anr.]