4 min readNew DelhiJun 29, 2026 03:00 PM IST
Observing that “understanding of the law is at an all-time low”, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed with Rs 50,000 costs a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the Uttar Pradesh state authorities to recall a division bench’s order granting bail to a murder convict and suspending his sentence.
A bench of Justices J J Munir and Arun Kumar was hearing a PIL filed by a man who had also sought transfer of the pending criminal appeal to a court that hears cases pertaining to MPs and MLAs. “We live in a society, where knowledge of laws has become scanty with the advent of disciplines of sciences overtaking the awareness and general knowledge of citizens about other matters. Understanding of the law is at an all-time low,” the order dated June 25 read.
The court rejected the request to transfer the pending criminal appeal to an MP/MLA court, explaining that there is no way that a criminal appeal can be sent to a court of sessions.
The petitioner had filed a PIL seeking a direction to the state authorities (state of UP, the senior superintendent of police in Azamgarh, and two station house officers) to recall orders through which another division bench of the high court had granted bail and suspended the sentence of a person convicted under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC during the pendency of his criminal appeal. However, such a recall is not possible under the law.
Justices J J Munir and Arun Kumar observed that knowledge of laws has become scanty with the advent of the disciplines of science overtaking the general knowledge of citizens.
‘Outrageous plea’
- Terming the relief sought by the petitioner as “outrageous”, the court said that it cannot look into the merits of the case, considering the kind of jurisdiction that he has invoked and the relief he has sought.
- Whatever be the basis for the petitioner to think that the bail granted ought be cancelled, we cannot look into the merits of the case considering the kind of jurisdiction that he has invoked and the relief he has sought, the court remarked.
- It observed that knowledge of laws has become scanty with the advent of the disciplines of science, overtaking the awareness and general knowledge of citizens about other matters.
- The petition has been filed through a learned counsel about whom it is presumed that the raw facts brought to his notice would be honed into a legally presentable case before the court.
- It does not require a profound training in the law if there is general awareness that this kind of a direction is so absurd that the prayer should never have been put in pen and ink, it remarked.
‘Doesn’t even deserve contempt’
The court also rejected the plea to transfer the pending criminal appeal to an MP/MLA court, explaining that they function as designated sessions courts for trying cases involving public representatives. “Both the prayers that have been made before this Court are so shocking that we are of opinion that these do not deserve even the contempt of this Court,” it held.
The court, considering that such a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner, who had prevailed over the counsel, to bring it before the court, imposed Rs 50,000 costs on the petitioner which is to be deposited with the registrar general of the court in 15 days.
It further said that in case of default, the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue and remitted to the High Court Legal Services Authority.