The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has canceled the order regarding the mandatory condition of being a local resident of Lucknow for registration of e-rickshaw in the capital. The court said that such a condition is a clear violation of the fundamental rights of equality, freedom of occupation and life. This order was passed by the division bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Brijraj Singh after hearing four petitions including Ajit Yadav’s petition.

It was said in the petitions that on February 5, 2025, the Assistant Divisional Transport Officer, Lucknow passed an order and imposed two restrictions regarding the registration of e-rickshaws. Under the first of these restrictions, a person who already has registration of an e-rickshaw will not get the registration of a new rickshaw and under the second restriction, only a person who is permanently resident in Lucknow will get the registration of a new e-rickshaw.

In the petitions, the second condition related to permanent residence in Lucknow was challenged. Responding to the petitions, the state government said that e-rickshaw owners living on rent in Lucknow face difficulty in giving notices regarding expiry of fitness etc. If their address changes, it becomes difficult to trace them. The court was not satisfied with this answer and did not consider it a proper basis for depriving people living on rent from registration.

The bench said that there could be other ways to control the number of e-rickshaws like registering only a certain quantity in a year and confiscating e-rickshaws that do not have a valid fitness certificate, but denying registration on the basis of not having permanent residence in Lucknow is arbitrary.

Akhilesh Yadav will not repeat Bihar’s mistake, changed strategy regarding 2027, PDA watchmen will play!

Big news related to the politics of Uttar Pradesh has come out on Friday (31 October 2025), Mafia Mukhtar Ansari’s MLA son Abbas Ansari has got immediate relief from Allahabad High Court. The High Court has given relief to Abbas Ansari in the case of violation of code of conduct.

The High Court has stayed the proceedings of the trial court till the next hearing. A case of violation of code of conduct was registered against Abbas Ansari for gathering crowd without permission. Let us tell you that Abbas Ansari has demanded cancellation of the charge sheet filed in the petition. FIR was lodged in Kotwali police station of Mau district.

Threat was given from the stage to teach a lesson after the elections

Mau MLA Abbas Ansari was the candidate of Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party. He had held a meeting without permission on March 3, 2022 at 8:30 pm at Paharpura Ground. In this meeting, a crowd was gathered and a threat was given from the stage to stop Mau’s administration from doing the accounts after the elections and then teach a lesson.

Apart from Abbas Ansari and brother, FIR was against 150 others.

In this case, the next day on March 4, 2022, Sub Inspector Gangaram Bind had lodged an FIR in the Kotwali police station, in which the names of Abbas Ansari, younger brother Omar Abbas Ansari and 150 unknown persons were in this FIR. Now the next hearing of the case will be on 1 December 2025. Advocate Upendra Upadhyay has presented the case on behalf of Abbas Ansari. The case has been heard in the single bench of Justice Sameer Jain.

Let us tell you that, in this case, the assembly membership of MLA Abbas Ansari from Mau Sadar assembly seat was restored. The Assembly Secretariat has also issued an order in this regard on 8 September 2025.

Also read: ‘If not you then bring another girl…I will give you whatever money you want’, government doctor’s dirty demand from the nurse

Up 42 judge transfer: The news of the transfer of 42 judges has come out in Uttar Pradesh. The Allahabad High Court has transferred 42 judicial officers. Judicial officers posted in different districts of UP have got new deployment. Earlier on Monday, 62 judges were transferred. The Allahabad High Court has transferred 42 District and Sessions level judicial officers.

42 District and Sessions judges of UP have got new deployment. District Judge Sanjeev Pandey of Varanasi has been sent to Meerut. Along with this, District Judge of Sambhal Kamlesh Kuchal has become the new district judge of Jhansi. At the same time, District Judge of Bhadohi will be the new district judge of Durg Narayan Singh Sambhal and DJ Sanjeev Kumar of Aligarh has become the new district judge of Prayagraj. Apart from this, Santosh Rai has been sent to Muzaffarnagar District Judge from Prayagraj District Judge. Mathura DJ Ashish Garg was made the new district judge of Ghaziabad. On the orders of Allahabad High Court, Registrar General Rajiv Bharti has issued this notification.

Along with this, Principal Judge Vidushi Singh of Family Court Hapur has been given the responsibility of District and Sessions Judge Mahoba. At the same time, Judge Sanjay Kumar has been made a District and Sessions Judge in Bijnor to Bijnor. Bhanu Dev Sharma has been made a Rampur District and Sessions Judge from Moradabad. Rampur Judge Satya Prakash Tripathi has been sent to Pratapgarh as a District and Sessions Judge. Bahraich’s District and Sessions Judge Utkarsh Chaturvedi has been sent to Balaram as a District and Sessions Judge.

(Saurabh Kumar’s report from Prayagraj)

Up news: Samajwadi Party leader and former MP Azam Khan from Allahabad High Court has got immediate relief. The Allahabad High Court has stayed the arrest of the SP leader in the case lodged at Ganj police station in Rampur in 2007. However, advance deliberations against Azam Khan will continue. The order has been given by the Division Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra.

Please tell that the plaintiff officer Khan had filed a case against SP leader Azam Khan on charges of demolishing the house on government land. After deliberation in this case, the final report came in 2007 itself, which was pending in the court of the judicial magistrate. After the death of Wadi Officer Khan in 2017, his son Zulfikar Khan filed a Protest Petition against the final report in 2024 after 18 years, on which the magistrate ordered an advance discussion.

At the same time, SP leader Azam Khan had filed a petition against this order to stop advance investigation and stop arrest. In this case, senior advocates Imran Ullah and Mohammad Khalid on behalf of the petitioner Azam Khan presented the arguments and the government made the arguments on behalf of Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal. The High Court has stayed the arrest of Azam Khan after hearing both sides.

Let us know that earlier Azam Khan had got a big relief from the Supreme Court, Azam Khan’s bail was approved in the Dungarpur case. Azam Khan was sentenced to seven years from the MP-MLA court in the Dungarpur case. In this case, Azam Khan has serious allegations like abusing robbery, homeless from home. At present, SP leader Azam Khan is lodged in Sitapur Jail.

Sambhal: Hearing on Zafar Ali’s bail plea till April 4, this reason came out

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court has taken self -cognizance on the controversial decision of the Allahabad High Court in a case related to the rape attempt with a minor girl. The case will be heard on Wednesday (26 March 2025). The matter is being heard in the bench of Justice BR Gawai and Augustin George Christ.

Criticism of High Court decision

In this decision on March 17, the High Court had said that catching the victim’s private organs and breaking the pajamas will not be called an attempt to rape. This part of the decision was being criticized all -round. Many lawyers and social workers had requested the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the case.

In the case on which this disputed decision of the Allahabad High Court came, 2 accused had sections 376 (rape), 18 (attempt of crime) and sections of the Poxo Act. Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, who gave a decision on the case, recorded the facts of the incident with an 11 -year -old girl. His conclusion was that this is a case of trauma on the dignity of the woman. Can not call it an attempt to rape or rape.

The section of rape was removed

Justice Mishra had removed both the accused to prosecute Section 354-B (for the purpose of stripping the woman) and Section 9 (serious sexual attack) of the Poxo Act, removing the section of the rape. People were demanding cognizance of the Supreme Court in view of the conclusion of Justice Mishra and the far -reaching impact of his comments.

A PIL was also filed in the Supreme Court regarding this matter. On March 24, a case was found in a bench headed by Justice Bela Trivedi. He had expressed displeasure over the petitioner and his advocate on records being present and the appeal of any other lawyer in his place. After this, he dismissed the petition.

Allahabad High Court on Husband Wife Relation: The Allahabad High Court has expressed displeasure in a case of uploading pornographic videos of his wife on Facebook. The High Court has said that if the marriage is of marriage, the husband does not get his wife’s ownership or control over her nor does marriage reduce her autonomy or right to privacy.

While dismissing the petition filed with the demand to dismiss the husband’s charge sheet, High Court Judge Vinod Diwakar said, “By uploading a video of intimate relations on Facebook, the husband has severely violated the sanctity of the matrimonial relationship. A husband is expected to respect his wife’s faith and faith, especially in the context of his intimate relationship.”

Betrayal weakens the basis of matrimonial relationship- court

The Hoi Court said, “Sharing such content is a violation of the inherent privacy that defines the relationship between husband and wife. This betrayal weakens the basis of marital relationship and does not get protection of marital relationship.” The court further said, “A wife is not an extension of her husband, but is a person who has his own rights and desires. Respecting his physical autonomy and privacy is not just a legal obligation, but a moral imperative to promote the same relationship in the true sense.”

According to the facts of the case, the woman had filed a case under Section 67 of the IT Act against her husband Pradyuman Yadav in police station Padri of Mirzapur. She alleges that her husband made a pornographic video of the intimate relationship without her information and consent and shared it on Facebook and shared it.

Husband said- there is no crime on me

The petitioner’s counsel said that his client is married to the complainant, so there is no offense under Section 67 of the IT Act. Apart from this, there is a lot of scope for agreement between husband and wife. However, the Additional Government Advocate opposed the petition saying that although the complainant is a legal married wife of the petitioner, the petitioner has no right to make pornographic videos of his wife and upload it on Facebook.

Also read-

On the demand to make Keshav Prasad CM of UP, now OP Rajbhar also said- in our party …