Allahabad High Court
SUSHMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The benefit of the earlier judgment is limited to the candidates before the court and cannot be extended to other candidates.
Summary
The petitioner, Sushma, filed a writ petition seeking to extend the benefit of a judgment dated 09.07.2026 in Special Appeal No. 467 of 2026 to herself, as she was not a party to the earlier proceedings. The respondent‑Commission argued, citing a later judgment (14.09.2026, Writ‑A No. 13927 of 2026, Jai Krishna Upadhyay v. State of U.P.), that the benefit of that earlier judgment was confined to the candidates who were before the court and could not be extended to other candidates. The petitioner did not dispute this position. The court held that the earlier judgment’s benefit could not be extended to any other candidate and therefore dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the benefit of the judgment in Special Appeal No. 467 of 2026 can be extended to a candidate who was not a party to the earlier proceedings.
Subjects
- judgment extension
- locus standi
- benefit of judgment
- writ petition
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15711 of 2026
Sushma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nand Lal Pandey, Suyash
Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kushmondeya Shahi
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Shri Suyash Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri K. Shahi, learned counsel for the respondent-
Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-
State.
2. The only argument which the learned counsel for the
petitioner has made is that, she could not participate in the
earlier proceedings which culminated in the judgment dated
09.07.2026, in Special Appeal No. 467 of 2026; and this Court
has confined the benefit of the said judgment only to the
candidates who were before the Court and not to any other
candidate.
3. Shri K. Shahi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-
Commission has placed before this Court a judgment dated
14.09.2026 in Writ-A No. 13927 of 2026 (Jai Krishna
Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P.); in which the petitioner was a
similarly situated candidate, and after observing the judgment
dated 09.07.2026, this Court has held that the benefit therein
cannot be extended to any other candidate, being fence-sitter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the
aforesaid, and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed,
also for the reasons stated in the judgment dated 14.09.2026.
WRIA No. 15711 of 2026
2
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
However, no order as to costs.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
September 28, 2026
Sumit K.
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…