Is there any way for a victim’s counsel to file a caveat in a criminal matter before the Allahabad High Court? The High Court has asked its administrative side to consider a plea for a caveat mechanism in criminal cases, observing that a PIL highlighting the absence of such a provision in the High Court Rules raises “an important issue regarding access to justice”.
Lucknow: A petition pointing out that the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have no formal system for caveats in criminal matters has ended with a direction that the High Court examine the point on its administrative side, the Lucknow Bench disposing of the public interest litigation and asking that the petitioner’s representation addressed to the Chief Justice be considered [Anupriya Agarwal v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Law/Legal Remembrancer, Lucknow and Another].
A Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the order on November 3, 2026 in PIL No. 1053 of 2026, filed by Anupriya Agarwal, a practising advocate of the High Court.
A matter of procedure, said the Bench
The Bench found that the issue deserved examination, but treated it as one of procedure best handled administratively:
“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. Therefore, let the petitioner’s representation copy of which is annexed as Annexure no.1 to the writ petition and is addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court be considered by the High Court on the administrative side.”
The petition was disposed of on those terms, and the order sets no timeline for the administrative decision.
The gap the petitioner pointed to
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Saksham Agarwal submitted that the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 make no provision for filing a caveat in a criminal matter. Counsel for victims, whose rights are well recognised in law, are therefore at a loss, he argued, and find it difficult to track cases and contest them. The State was represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
What the PIL asked for
The petition sought a direction to the authorities to consider amending or supplementing Chapter XXII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, to include a formal and effective mechanism for the filing, registration, processing and notification of caveats in all criminal proceedings before the High Court. These included criminal revisions, criminal appeals, bail and anticipatory bail applications, petitions under Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and petitions under Sections 528 and 529 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
It also sought a reasoned decision within one month on the petitioner’s representation dated October 13, 2026, keeping in view the statutory rights of victims and informants, fair procedure, the liberty of the accused, the expeditious administration of criminal justice and the institutional interests of the High Court.
Why the order matters
A caveat lets a party who expects a case to be filed ask to be heard before any order is passed. In civil matters it is governed by Section 148A of the Code of Civil Procedure, but criminal procedure has no equivalent statutory provision, so practice depends on each High Court’s rules. With victims and informants now entitled to be heard at several stages, including bail and appeals, the absence of a clear caveat route can leave them unaware of hearings in which their interests are at stake.
The Court’s recognition that the issue concerns access to justice, and its decision to route the representation to the Chief Justice’s administrative side, opens the door to a rule change that could affect thousands of criminal matters filed in India’s largest High Court.
Case Title: Anupriya Agarwal v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Law/Legal Remembrancer, Lucknow and Another
Case No.: Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1053 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Saksham Agarwal, Pranshu Agrawal and Rakesh Kumar Agarwal for the petitioner; Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State; Advocate Shishir Jain for the respondents
