#allahabad_high_court

Supreme Court Restricts Police Authority to Register FIRs Under Anti-Sex Determination Law The Supreme Court has ruled that police officers cannot independently register First Information Reports (FIRs) or initiate investigations into violations under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC & PNDT) Act. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, clarified that the designated Appropriate Authority under the legislation holds exclusive responsibility for handling complaints and conducting probes. The court emphasized that magistrates cannot accept chargesheets submitted directly by police officers under this law, reinforcing the statutory framework that limits judicial involvement to formal complaints from authorized entities or private individuals. The ruling addresses a longstanding procedural conflict between Sections 27 and 28 of the 1994 PC & PNDT Act, which aims to prevent female foeticide and regulate medical diagnostic practices. Section 27 classifies all offenses under the Act as cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable, typically triggering standard police interventions. However, Section 28 imposes restrictions on judicial cognizance, requiring courts to act only upon a formal complaint filed by the Appropriate Authority, an authorized officer, or a private individual who provides a mandatory 15-day prior notice. This contradiction led to ambiguity in practice, prompting the court to resolve the statutory dilemma. The case reached the Supreme Court following a reference by the Allahabad High Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brij Pal Singh in September 2024. The reference sought clarity on whether police could register FIRs and submit chargesheets independently, despite the Act’s cognizable label.#supreme_court #allahabad_high_court #n_kotiswar_singh #pc_pndt_act #sanjay_karol

Supreme Court Rules Police Cannot Register FIRs for PC-PNDT Act Offences The Supreme Court of India has ruled that police authorities cannot register First Information Reports (FIRs) or act as the primary investigating body for offenses under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC & PNDT Act). The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh, clarified that the Appropriate Authority established under the Act is solely responsible for investigating complaints related to violations of the law. Police may only assist in investigations when explicitly directed by the Appropriate Authority. The ruling emerged from a case referred to the Supreme Court by the Allahabad High Court, which had raised three key questions about the interplay between Sections 27 and 28 of the PC & PNDT Act. Section 27 designates all offenses under the Act as cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable, while Section 28 mandates that no court can take cognizance of such offenses unless a complaint is filed by the Appropriate Authority, an authorized officer, or a person who has notified the Appropriate Authority of the alleged offense at least 15 days in advance. The Court addressed the first question: whether the cognizability of PC & PNDT Act offenses under Section 27 allows police to register FIRs and investigate cases. The justices concluded that the language of Sections 27 and 28, combined with the Act’s socially sensitive nature and the technical expertise required for investigations, precludes police from being the primary investigators. While FIRs can still be registered for unrelated general criminal offenses, the Court emphasized that the PC & PNDT Act’s procedural framework must be strictly followed.#allahabad_high_court #supreme_court_of_india #n_kotiswar_singh #sanjay_karol #pc_pndt_act

Property Rights: When Property Purchased in Wife's Name Belongs to the Family The Allahabad High Court recently issued a significant ruling on property rights, clarifying that assets bought using a husband’s income in the wife’s name are considered family property rather than the wife’s individual asset. This decision addresses a common legal ambiguity in India, where many couples purchase property in the wife’s name to take advantage of tax benefits or legal protections. The court emphasized that such property is not solely the wife’s but is treated as part of the family’s collective assets, especially when the husband’s income is the source of the purchase. The ruling comes amid growing concerns about how property ownership is interpreted under Hindu law and family dynamics. According to the court, if a husband uses his income to buy property in his wife’s name, it is deemed family property unless the wife can prove she used her own income for the purchase. This distinction is critical because it affects inheritance rights, legal ownership, and financial responsibilities in case of disputes. The court’s decision aligns with the principles of Hindu Succession laws, which prioritize family welfare over individual ownership in certain contexts. The case that prompted this ruling involved a son who claimed a share in property purchased by his father in his mother’s name. The father had bought the property using his own income, and the son argued that the property should be considered his mother’s personal asset. However, the court ruled that since the husband’s income funded the purchase, the property belongs to the family, not the wife. This decision underscores the legal framework that treats property acquired through joint family efforts as shared, even if registered in one spouse’s name.#allahabad_high_court #husband #wife #family_property #hindu_succession_act

Bombay High Court Rules Religious Practices Must Yield to Public Interest and Law and Order The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently clarified that the right to practice one’s religion under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution is not absolute and must be balanced against the interests of law and order, public welfare, and the needs of other societal groups. This ruling came in response to a petition filed by Deepak Nechwani, who challenged police restrictions on the route of a proposed Kavad Yatra, a religious procession carrying consecrated water for a Shivling’s jalabhishek. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that authorities have the discretion to regulate religious processions when public safety, traffic, and social harmony are at stake. The dispute centered on a proposed route for the Kavad Yatra that would pass through Mominpura, an area with a significant minority population and several mosques and dargahs. The police had denied permission for the route, citing concerns over public order, traffic congestion, and safety. The DCP’s order, issued on August 1, noted that the proposed path would traverse eight mosques and one dargah, raising fears of potential unrest. This was not the first time the area had experienced tensions; the police referenced a January 22, 2024, incident near Jama Masjid in Mominpura and communal unrest on March 17, 2025, following a protest linked to Aurangzeb’s tomb. Nechwani argued that the petition was a test of India’s secularism, asserting that religious processions cannot be barred solely because their routes pass through areas with other religious communities. However, the court rejected this stance, stating that the issue was not about religious freedom but about regulating the use of public roads.#allahabad_high_court #bombay_high_court #mominpura #deepak_nechwani #kavad_yatra

--- Politics & Governance Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Speech: Encouraged citizens to question existing systems and seek innovative solutions to societal problems. Emphasized that challenges can become opportunities for growth and progress. Congress Party's Stance: Rahul Gandhi criticized the central government for not implementing the Women's Reservation Bill (2023) and questioned the delay in its implementation. Accused the government of unnecessarily complicating the issue by linking it to electoral reforms. Judicial Appointments: The central government appointed 30 new judges to four High Courts, including 15 for the Madras High Court. 20 judges were from the legal profession, while 10 were from the judicial service (district court judges). --- Legal & Social Issues Court Rulings: Aligarh High Court: Recognized the right of a temporary government employee to seek permanent employment post-retirement. Allahabad High Court: Stated that if evidence proves a woman was harassed for dowry, her death within five years of marriage could be considered "dowry death." Notable Cases: Uttar Pradesh: A woman (Naina) killed her husband (Manoj) with a stone and disposed of the body in a forest. Her son and lover were involved. Haryana: A senior lawyer (Balvant Singh Valia) was robbed of ₹3.15 crore in cash and jewelry by thieves. Legal Reforms: UPI Policy Clarification: The government clarified that UPI services are free for regular users and small businesses, rejecting concerns about charges. --- Social & Cultural Highlights Cultural Diversity: A Rajasthan girl collected diverse types of candles (agari) as a hobby, showcasing regional artistry. Rahul Gandhi highlighted the role of youth in shaping India's future, calling them the "biggest strength" of the nation.#rahul_gandhi #narendra_modi #allahabad_high_court #madras_high_court #aligarh_high_court

Allahabad High Court Rules Sub-Divisional Magistrate Alone Can Issue Death Certificate for Delayed Registrations The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that under the Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) is the sole authority to issue a death certificate if the registration of death is delayed beyond one year. The court emphasized that any attempt to bypass this statutory requirement by directing the Registrar to issue the certificate directly would undermine the purpose of the Act. This decision came in response to a petition filed by Naval Kishore Srivastava, who sought a death certificate for his first wife, Madhuri Srivastava, who died in 2001. The petitioner, who married Madhuri Srivastava in 1962, claimed she left him in the same year. He filed a divorce suit in 1970, which was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed in 1974. Despite this, the court ordered him to provide half his salary to Madhuri for several years. He later took voluntary retirement in 1985 as a Squadron Leader in the Indian Air Force. The petitioner stated that Madhuri died in 2001 while living at her parents’ house. In 2001, the petitioner married again, but the name of his second wife could not be recorded in his service records. In 2011, he applied for the deletion of his first wife’s name and the substitution of his second wife as his legally recognized spouse. When he filled out a form for his 80th birthday in 2025, he disclosed his second wife as his spouse. This prompted the Directorate of Air Veterans to request details of his family, including marriage and death certificates or a court-issued divorce decree.#allahabad_high_court #naval_kishore_srivastava #madhuri_srivastava #directorates_of_air_veterans #section_13_registration_act

Allahabad High Court Attributes Case Pendency to State Government and Police Failures The Allahabad High Court recently criticized the Uttar Pradesh state government and police for their role in the massive backlog of criminal cases, stating that systemic failures in these institutions are the primary cause of delayed justice rather than judicial inefficiency. In a May 7 order, a bench led by Justice Arun Kumar Deshwal highlighted that severe staff shortages, lack of police cooperation in executing court orders, and delays in forensic reports have hindered the ability of young and dedicated judicial officers to function effectively. The court emphasized that the blame for the pendency of cases in district courts should not solely rest on the judiciary but on the state administration and law enforcement agencies. The observations were made during a hearing on a murder case where investigators failed to conduct DNA analysis on blood found on a recovered screwdriver. The court summoned the Director General of Police (DGP), the Principal Secretary (Home), and the Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to address the lapse. The FSL Director revealed that only eight of Uttar Pradesh’s 12 forensic labs had DNA profiling facilities, and these labs faced chronic staff shortages and outdated equipment. The court noted that the FSL operates under the police department, limiting its administrative and financial independence. The bench argued that the root cause of case delays lies in the state government’s failure to address systemic issues. It pointed out that the inability of police to execute court summonses and warrants, coupled with incomplete or delayed forensic reports, has created a bottleneck in the judicial process.#allahabad_high_court #police_department #uttar_pradesh_state_government #forensic_science_lab #justice_arun_kumar_deshwal

Allahabad High Court Censures ADM for Unwarranted Inquiries on Muslim Man's Conversion The Allahabad High Court recently issued a strong reprimand against an Additional District Magistrate (ADM) for initiating repeated and unnecessary police inquiries under Uttar Pradesh’s anti-conversion law against a Muslim man who voluntarily converted to Hinduism. The court criticized the ADM for using the legal framework to probe the conversion process, despite clear evidence that the petitioner’s decision was entirely voluntary. The case centers on Anil Pandit, an assistant professor at Allahabad University, who sought to formally declare his conversion to Hinduism and faced bureaucratic resistance from the ADM. Pandit, previously known as Mohammad Ahashan, submitted his declaration of intent to convert under Section 8 of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, on January 12, 2022. A priest provided additional documentation to the district magistrate (DM) on February 11, 2022, confirming the upcoming conversion ritual. The actual conversion ceremony took place on March 14, 2022, at an Arya Samaj Temple. By this point, two police inquiry reports had already been submitted to the DM, both concluding that the conversion was voluntary and free from coercion. Despite these findings, the ADM, Prayagraj, ordered further police inquiries in 2023, citing a criminal case lodged against Pandit by his wife’s father, who opposed the marriage. The father alleged that Pandit had “unduly influenced” his daughter to marry him. The ADM ultimately rejected Pandit’s application for a conversion certificate on August 9, 2024, relying on a subsequent police report from July 2024 that referenced the FIR and charge-sheet against Pandit.#allahabad_high_court #additional_district_magistrate #anil_pandit #aryasamaj_temple

Allahabad High Court Transfers 1086 Judicial Officers in Uttar Pradesh The Allahabad High Court has initiated a large-scale transfer of judicial officers across Uttar Pradesh, affecting 1086 judges. The move aims to streamline operations in district courts and ensure efficient case management. The transfers, ordered by Chief Justice Arun Bhansali, involve 408 Additional District and Sessions Judges (ADJ), 277 Civil Judges Senior Division, and 401 Civil Judges Junior Division. The court’s directive mandates that all affected officers submit their current posts by 15 April afternoon and transition to their new postings via email. They will remain affiliated with the court until their new assignments are confirmed. The transfer list, uploaded on the high court’s website, includes detailed records of all judicial officers, covering every district in the state. Key appointments include Varun Mohit Nigam, an Additional District and Sessions Judge from Bulandshahr, who will now serve as Registrar (Judicial) (Listing) at the Allahabad High Court. Devendra Nath Goswami, a Special Judge from Sant Kabir Nagar, has been appointed Joint Registrar (Judicial) (Inspection) at the Lucknow Bench. Other notable transfers include: Jyotindra Kumar-II, a Special Judge from Lucknow, now serving as Registrar (Judicial) (Accounts) at the Lucknow Bench. Nishant Singla, an Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) from Muzaffarnagar, appointed Joint Registrar (Judicial) (Inspection) at the Allahabad High Court. Mayur Jain, Registrar (Judicial) (Listing) at the Allahabad High Court, has been transferred to the Gautam Buddha Nagar district.#uttar_pradesh #allahabad_high_court #arun_bhansali #varun_mohit_nigam #devendra_nath_goswami

Allahabad High Court Directs UP Lok Sabha Commission to Clarify TGT Recruitment for Classes 9-10 The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Lok Service Commission to explicitly state in the recruitment advertisement for trained graduate teachers (TGT) that the positions are reserved for educators teaching classes 9 and 10. The court also mandated that the state government amend its rules to include the mandatory requirement of passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) as part of the eligibility criteria. This directive came after the court dismissed a petition challenging the validity of Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Educational Service (Trained Graduate) Rules, 1983, which had been deemed unconstitutional by the petitioners. The petition, filed by individuals including Jayhind Yadav and others from Prayagraj, argued that Rule 8 of the 1983 rules was unconstitutional as it allowed the recruitment of teachers for classes 6-8 without requiring TET qualification. The petitioners contended that the 2010 notification from the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) mandated that all teacher recruitment processes align with its guidelines, which explicitly required TET certification. The court, however, ruled that the state government had not provided evidence of any recruitment under the NCTE’s 2010 notification or clarified the specific classes for which the positions were intended. The court emphasized that the recruitment advertisement dated July 28, 2025, failed to specify the classes for which the teachers were being hired, leading to ambiguity.#allahabad_high_court #national_council_of_teacher_education #uttar_pradesh_lok_service_commission #jayhind_yadav

Married Man In Consensual Live-In Relationship Isn't A Crime: High Court The Allahabad High Court ruled that a married man cannot be prosecuted for engaging in a consensual live-in relationship with an adult woman, emphasizing that legal protections must not be influenced by societal or moral judgments. The court quashed a police case filed by the mother of an 18-year-old woman, Anamika, against her partner, Netrapal, and directed authorities to ensure their safety from threats. The case originated when Anamika’s mother, Kanti, filed a complaint under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) alleging that Netrapal, a married man, had "enticed" her daughter into a relationship. The couple, both adults, argued the relationship was consensual and sought to dismiss the case. The court acknowledged that no criminal offense was committed if the relationship was mutual and voluntary, stressing that the law must remain separate from social norms. The court ordered police to refrain from arresting the couple and to protect them from harm, including threats of violence or harassment from family members. It also prohibited the woman’s family from entering their home or contacting them through any means, assigning direct responsibility to the local police chief for their safety. The matter was set for further hearing on April 8. During the proceedings, the court highlighted that Anamika had confirmed her adulthood and willingness to be in the relationship. Legal arguments centered on whether Netrapal’s marital status made the relationship illegal, but the court rejected this, noting no applicable law criminalizes consensual adult partnerships. The couple also raised concerns about potential "honour killing" threats from their families, prompting the court to reprimand the police for failing to address these risks.#allahabad_high_court #anamika #netrapal #kanti #shakti_vahini

Live-In Relationship Not an Offense for Married Man, Says Allahabad High Court The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a married man engaging in a live-in relationship with an adult woman, with her consent, does not constitute a legal offense. A bench led by Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena emphasized that morality and law must remain distinct, rejecting the idea that social norms should influence judicial decisions. The court’s ruling came in response to a petition filed by a couple facing threats from the woman’s family. The case centered on an 18-year-old woman who had entered a live-in relationship with a married man. Her family filed an FIR accusing him of luring her away through “blandishment,” arguing that his marital status made the relationship illegal. However, the court dismissed this claim, stating that there is no legal basis to prosecute a married man for staying with an adult woman if both parties consent. The bench clarified that such a relationship does not violate any law, urging authorities to prioritize legal principles over societal judgments. The woman had previously approached the Superintendent of Police in Shahjahanpur, asserting her adulthood and the voluntary nature of her relationship with the man. Despite her claims, her family continued to threaten her with violence, including the risk of an honor killing. The couple alleged that the police failed to act on their complaint, leaving them vulnerable to harm. In response, the court ordered immediate interim protection for the petitioners, prohibiting their arrest in the ongoing criminal case under Section 87 BNS. It also directed the informant and the woman’s family members to refrain from any form of harassment, including physical or electronic contact.#allahabad_high_court #shahjahanpur #justice_jj_munir #justice_tarun_saxena #section_87_bns

SC Raps HC Judge for Overwhelming Bail Grants in Dowry Deaths A judge of the Allahabad High Court has come under scrutiny after data revealed a pattern of granting bail in dowry death cases, following criticism from the Supreme Court of India. An analysis of 510 bail orders issued between October and December 2025 by Justice Pankaj Bhatia showed that bail was granted in 508 cases, accounting for 99.61% of the total. The cases primarily involved charges under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to dowry death, along with provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Supreme Court had previously challenged one of Justice Bhatia’s bail orders in February, questioning the reasoning behind granting relief in a serious dowry death case. The case in question involved a woman who died within months of marriage, with postmortem findings indicating strangulation. The apex court emphasized the need to evaluate factors such as the nature of the offense, evidence, and the relationship between the accused and the deceased. A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan expressed confusion over the High Court’s rationale, stating, “We fail to understand on plain reading of the impugned order as to what the High Court is trying to convey… what weighed with the High Court in exercising its discretion in favour of the accused for the purpose of grant of bail in a very serious crime like dowry death.” Following the Supreme Court’s remarks, Justice Bhatia requested that he not be assigned bail matters, citing the demoralizing impact of the criticism.#allahabad_high_court #supreme_court_of_india #justice_pankaj_bhatia #justice_j_b_pardiwala #justice_k_v_vishwanathan

Bail in 99.6% of dowry death cases: Allahabad High Court judge faces scrutiny after Supreme Court criticism An Allahabad High Court judge granted bail in nearly all dowry death cases heard by his bench over three months in 2025, according to a report by The Indian Express. Justice Pankaj Bhatia issued bail in 508 of 510 cases, representing 99.61% of the total, under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant provisions. The decision drew sharp criticism from the Supreme Court, which called one of the bail orders “most shocking and disappointing.” The Supreme Court’s intervention followed a February 9 ruling by a bench led by Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Vishwanathan, which overturned Bhatia’s order. The court expressed confusion over the reasoning behind the bail grant, emphasizing that the High Court should have considered the severity of the crime, the prescribed punishment, the relationship between the accused and the deceased, and medical evidence. The court canceled the bail in the specific case and directed the accused to surrender. The case in question involved the death of 28-year-old Sushma Devi from Shrawasti district, whose body was found on her matrimonial home’s verandah less than two months after her wedding. Her father alleged that the groom’s family demanded a car after the wedding, despite a cash gift of Rs 3.5 lakh. A Sessions Court had previously denied bail, citing postmortem findings of “asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation” and injuries on the victim’s neck. The report highlighted inconsistencies in Bhatia’s bail orders, noting that the structure and language of the decisions, as well as the bond amounts, were largely uniform across cases, despite varying circumstances.#supreme_court #allahabad_high_court #pankaj_bhatia #sushma_devi #shrawasti_district

Allahabad High Court Judge Faces Criticism Over High Bail Rate in Dowry Death Cases A recent analysis of bail orders issued by Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Allahabad High Court has revealed that he granted bail in 99.6% of dowry death cases heard by his bench between October and December 2025. The Supreme Court criticized the judge’s approach, calling one of his bail orders “most shocking and disappointing,” and ordered the cancellation of the bail in a specific case. The analysis by The Indian Express examined 510 publicly available bail orders in dowry death cases, with Justice Bhatia granting bail in 508 of them. The structure, language, and bond amounts in the orders were consistent across cases, despite varying circumstances of the incidents. The Supreme Court noted that the high court’s reasoning failed to address the gravity of the crime, as dowry death cases involve severe charges under Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 80 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. In the case that drew the Supreme Court’s attention, the victim, Sushma Devi, died less than two months after her marriage. Her father claimed the groom’s family had demanded a car after the wedding, and the postmortem report indicated asphyxia due to antemortem strangulation. The Sessions Court had initially denied bail, citing the nature of the crime. However, Justice Bhatia’s order was overturned, with the Supreme Court emphasizing the need for courts to consider the relationship between the accused and the deceased, the location of the incident, and medical evidence. Justice Bhatia requested the Chief Justice to remove him from the bail roster, stating the Supreme Court’s remarks had a “huge demoralising and chilling effect” on him. He did not respond to attempts by The Indian Express to contact him.#supreme_court #allahabad_high_court #pankaj_bhatia #sushma_devi #dowry_death_cases

High Court Seeks MHA Files on Rahul Gandhi Citizenship Complaint The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has directed the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to submit all records related to a citizenship complaint against Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress MP from Rae Bareli. The court issued this directive in response to a petition filed by S Vignesh Shishir, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker from Karnataka, who challenged a January 28 order from a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow. That court had previously dismissed Shishir’s plea seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Gandhi, citing lack of jurisdiction over citizenship-related matters. Justice Rajeev Singh of the High Court mandated the MHA to present the complete file connected to the case on March 19, the next hearing date. The file pertains to a complaint lodged by former BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, who has pursued legal action since 2019 to cancel Gandhi’s Indian citizenship. Swamy alleged that Gandhi had declared British nationality in documents for a UK company. The MHA had issued a notice to Gandhi on April 29, 2019, in this matter. Advocate Raj Kumar Singh, representing the Centre, stated that the court’s order aims to assess the current status of the case. The MHA’s Foreigners division and Citizenship wing are required to provide the court with all relevant records. Deputy Solicitor General SB Pandey noted that the court issued an interim order for the submission of these files. Shishir’s petition to the High Court seeks directions for the registration of an FIR against Gandhi and a thorough investigation into the allegations.#rahul_gandhi #allahabad_high_court #bharatiya_janata_party #ministry_of_home_affairs #subramanian_swamy

Rahul’s citizenship plea: HC seeks papers from Centre The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday requested the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to provide relevant records while examining a petition that alleges Congress MP Rahul Gandhi holds British citizenship. The single-judge bench, presided over by Justice Rajeev Singh, scheduled the next hearing in the matter for March 19. The petition was filed by S Vignesh Shishir, a BJP worker from Karnataka, who challenged the January 28, 2026, order of a special MP/MLA court in Lucknow. That court had rejected Shishir’s plea to register a formal complaint against Gandhi, stating it lacked jurisdiction to address citizenship issues. During the hearing, the bench questioned Union government counsel Raj Kumar Singh about the actions taken by the Centre on a complaint regarding Gandhi’s alleged British citizenship. The court emphasized the need for clarity on the matter, as the petition seeks to establish the validity of Gandhi’s citizenship status. The case has drawn significant attention due to the political implications of the allegations, with the court’s decision potentially influencing public perception and legal proceedings. The petition challenges the earlier ruling of the special MP/MLA court, which dismissed the case on grounds of jurisdiction. Shishir’s legal team argued that the court’s refusal to entertain the complaint was an oversight, as the issue of citizenship falls under the purview of the central government. The High Court’s intervention underscores the complexity of the case, which involves cross-examining the legal framework governing citizenship claims and the role of judicial bodies in such matters. The Union government’s response to the petition will be critical in determining the outcome of the case.#rahul_gandhi #allahabad_high_court #union_ministry_of_home_affairs #svignesh_shishir #rajeev_singh

Allahabad High Court Directs Centre To Produce Record Of MHA Notice To Rahul Gandhi The Allahabad High Court on Monday directed the Union of India to submit the complete records of a 2019 notice issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. The court’s order came while hearing a petition filed by Karnataka BJP member S. Vignesh Shishir, who challenged a Lucknow Court’s decision to refuse directing the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Gandhi over allegations related to his British citizenship. The case stems from a complaint filed by BJP MP Subramanian Swamy in 2015, which alleged that Gandhi holds British nationality. In response, the MHA issued a notice to Gandhi on April 29, 2019, asking him to provide the “factual position” regarding his citizenship. The court’s bench, comprising Justice Rajeev Singh, sought the records to assess the validity of the claims. Shishir’s petition argued that Gandhi is a UK citizen and had incorporated a company named M/s Backops Ltd. in August 2003. The petitioner claimed that Gandhi voluntarily declared his nationality as British, holding a Director Identification ID and providing addresses in London and Hampshire. Additionally, it was stated that Gandhi submitted the company’s annual returns in October 2005 and October 2006, listing his nationality as British. The company was later dissolved in February 2009 via a dissolution application. The petition further highlighted that Gandhi contested the 2004 Lok Sabha elections while disclosing ownership of M/s Backops Ltd. and his foreign bank account with Barclays Bank, London Branch.#rahul_gandhi #allahabad_high_court #union_of_india #ministry_of_home_affairs #s_vignesh_shishir

Marks In Public Recruitment Exams Not Confidential, Can Be Disclosed Under RTI Act Without Third-Party Consent: Allahabad High Court The Allahabad High Court ruled that information regarding marks obtained by candidates in public recruitment exams is not classified as confidential data. This means such details can be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, without requiring the consent of third parties, such as exam authorities or institutions. The bench, comprising Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, emphasized that the marks of individual candidates fall under the scope of public information. The court’s decision came in response to a query about whether the RTI applicant’s request for marks would necessitate the approval of third parties. The judgment clarified that the Right to Information Act allows for the disclosure of such data without additional consent, provided it is not exempt under specific provisions. The ruling underscores the transparency expected in public administrative processes, particularly in examinations conducted by government bodies. The court’s reasoning highlighted that the marks of candidates are part of the public record and are not protected under confidentiality clauses. This interpretation aligns with the broader objective of the RTI Act to promote accountability and openness in governance. The decision may set a precedent for similar cases where public records are sought under the RTI framework. The judgment also addressed the balance between individual privacy and the public’s right to information. While acknowledging the sensitivity of personal data, the court maintained that the disclosure of exam results does not infringe on privacy rights, as it pertains to a public function.#allahabad_high_court #right_to_information_act #justice_ajit_kumar #justice_swarupama_chaturvedi #public_recruitment_exams

Allahabad High Court Acquits Man Convicted of Wife and Children’s Murder After 23 Years The Allahabad High Court recently acquitted a man who had been convicted of murdering his wife and three children nearly two decades ago, overturning a verdict that had kept him in prison for over 23 years. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, ruled that the prosecution’s evidence failed to conclusively establish the accused’s guilt, highlighting systemic flaws in the criminal justice system. The case dates back to August 30, 2003, when the complainant, who was the uncle of the deceased wife, received information that the accused had killed his wife and their three children. The complainant, along with the deceased’s father and villagers, arrived at the accused’s village to investigate. Villagers claimed the accused had a dispute with his wife the previous night, leading to her and the children’s deaths via stabbing. The only survivor, a 5-year-old son, alleged that his father killed his mother and siblings. The bodies were found in the courtyard, and the accused fled the scene. A case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to the accused’s conviction. The court scrutinized the prosecution’s evidence, noting inconsistencies in witness accounts. The informant, who was the uncle of the deceased, claimed he received information from an unknown source about the murders. However, the court questioned the credibility of his statement, as he could not identify the person who provided the information. The surviving son, who testified that he witnessed the killings, later admitted during cross-examination that he had been coached by the informant to give a specific statement.#allahabad_high_court #justice_siddharth #justice_jai_krishna_upadhyay #section_302_ipc