The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation pointing out that its Rules do not provide for filing caveats in criminal matters, directing that the petitioner’s representation be considered on the administrative side. The Court said the plea prima facie raises an important issue concerning access to justice.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the order on November 3, 2026.
Plea for Caveat Mechanism in Criminal Cases
The PIL was filed by Anupriya Agarwal, a practising Advocate of the High Court. She sought a mandamus directing the authorities to consider amending or supplementing Chapter-XXII Rule-5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, to include a formal mechanism for filing, registration, processing and notification of caveats in criminal proceedings.
The proposed mechanism was to cover Criminal Revisions, Criminal Appeals, Bail applications, anticipatory Bail applications, petitions under Sections 482 and 483 Cr.P.C., 1973, and petitions under Sections 528 and 529 BNSS, 2023.
She also sought a direction for a reasoned decision, within one month, on her representation dated October 13, 2026, keeping in view the statutory rights of victims and informants, fair procedure, the liberty of the accused and the expeditious administration of criminal justice.
Arguments Before the Court
Advocate Saksham Agarwal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, contain no provision for filing a caveat in a criminal matter. As a result, he argued, the victim’s counsel, whose rights are well recognised in law, is at a loss and finds it difficult to track cases and contest them.
The Additional Chief Standing Counsel was heard for the State.
Allahabad High Court’s Observations on Caveat Rules
The Bench found merit in examining the issue, observing:
“Prima facie, the P.I.L. raises an important issue regarding access to justice and facilitating the same. It is a matter of procedure essentially.”
Noting that the petitioner’s representation is addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Court directed that it be considered by the High Court on the administrative side.
With this direction, the petition was disposed of.
Case Title: Anupriya Agarwal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law/Legal Remembrancer Lko. and Another
Case No.: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1053 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla
Date: November 3, 2026
