Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 265

Order/Judgments of Half-Year

January 2026

Filing Of 'Negative Report' Doesn't Authorise Police To Prosecute Informant For False Case: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dev Narayan Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 1

The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against a young petitioner, initiated by the police under Section 211 IPC for filing false case, opining that such proceeding could be initiated only upon a written complaint by the Court in relation to which the offence was committed.

Section 211, IPC deals with the office of initiating false criminal proceedings and falsely charging a person with an offence.

The Court perused Section 195(1)(b), CrPC, and opined that if an offence was alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any Court, cognizance could not be taken unless a written complaint was filed by that Court.

Hence, it was clear that prosecution under Section 211, IPC, was possible only after such written complaint was made by the Court concerned.

23 Yrs On, Rajasthan High Court Upholds Reinstatement Of Govt Employee Terminated After Arrest In Cheating FIR

Title: The State of Rajasthan v Smt. Manju Berwa & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 2

The Rajasthan High Court upheld an order directing reinstatement of a woman government employee who was terminated in 2002 following her arrest in relation to a cheating FIR in which she was eventually acquitted.

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi was hearing a special appeal filed by the State challenging order of a single judge bench that upheld the Labour Court's decision in which the State was directed to reinstate the woman (respondent).

"Upon perusal of the record and consideration of the factual matrix of the case, this Court finds no reason to take a view different from that of the learned Labour Court and the learned Single Judge. The very foundation of the termination order dated 17.10.2002 rested upon the pendency of a criminal case against respondent No.1. Once the respondent stood acquitted by a competent criminal court vide judgment dated 03.12.2011, the basis of such termination ceased to exist," the bench added.

Registered Owner Not Entitled To Interim Release Of Vehicle Seized In NDPS Case If He Is Also An Accused: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Khurshid v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 3

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the registered owner of a vehicle, seized in relation to an NDPS case, is not entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle merely on the grounds of ownership if he/she himself/herself is one of the accused in the case.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam in which the Court gave certain scenarios where the vehicle seized in an NDPS case could or could not be released.

“The first two scenarios deal with the situations where supurdagi of such vehicles has not been permitted when the registered owner of the vehicle was found to be involved in commission of offences punishable under NDPS Act such as when the contraband/drugs have been recovered from the possession of the owner of the vehicle or his agent such as driver or cleaner of the vehicle.”

Third Party Has No Locus To Oppose Withdrawal Of Criminal Complaint: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Kailash Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 4

The Rajasthan High Court recently rejected a petition challenging a trial court order that allowed withdrawal of a private complaint, opining that a third party who was neither the victim nor the complainant themselves, had no locus standi to revive the criminal proceedings.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasized that if such practice is allowed in a casual manner, any “meddlesome bystander” could decide to attack any person by initiating a frivolous proceeding and hence, causing irretrievable injury to the life and liberty of accused person.

“In Criminal Law, the State and its instrumentalities enjoy prerogatives, akin to crown prerogatives in England. The power exercised by the Public Prosecutor under S.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the nature of such a prerogative. The State may advise him in this regard, but he must exercise his mind independently, and he ought not to act under dictation. If he acts honestly, his act cannot be questioned. The limited role of the court is only supervisory, and not adjudicatory or appellate in character…Every system must work on trust. The court even where it is required to act as a watchdog is not required to act like a hound.”

'Prima Facie Discloses Fund Siphoning': Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR Against Filmmaker Vikram Bhatt, Others

Title: Gangeshwar Lal Shrivastava & Anr. v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 5

The Rajasthan High Court rejected pleas filed by filmmaker Vikram Bhatt and other persons seeking quashing of a cheating FIR lodged against them, observing that the FIR at this stage "prima facie" disclosed allegations of siphoning, diverting and misappropriation of funds which cannot be treated as "mere breach of contract".

The matter related to a FIR being filed against the petitioners–Bhatt and other persons, in relation to a contract signed between them and the respondent-complainant for making four films for which a consideration of Rs. 42 Crores was paid to the petitioners.

Justice Sameer Jain observed that at this stage, the court cannot conclusively determine whether the dispute is purely one of breach of contract or constitutes the offence of criminal breach of trust. 

Bail Is The Rule For Juveniles Even If Tried As Adults; Gravity Of Offence No Ground To Deny Bail Under JJ Act: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Us@us v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 6

Rajasthan High Court held that bail is the rule for a child in conflict with law under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (“the Act”) even if the Juvenile was being tried as an “Adult Accused” before the Children's Court.

While setting aside orders that rejected bail application of the juvenile petitioner accused of murder, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand affirmed that the seriousness of the alleged offence or the age of juvenile were not relevant considerations for denial of bail under Section 12 of the Act.

“Even a child who is of the age of 16 years or above and is alleged to have committed a heinous offence is also entitled to get bail under Section 12 of the Act of 2015… Section 12 is applicable to all juveniles, in conflict with law, without any discrimination of any nature.”

The Could held that the JJ Boards/Court were expected to deal with such juveniles with sensibility and responsibility, keeping in mind the objective of the Act which was to reform and rehabilitate. And society would be ruined if such children were dealt with punitive approach.

Section 311 CrPC | Accused Can't Be Denied Cross-Examination Due To Counsel's Illness: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Pooranmal Yadav v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 7

While underscoring the wide amplitude of powers available to Courts under Section 311 CrPC, the Rajasthan High Court has held that an accused cannot be denied the opportunity of cross-examination owing to the counsel's illness and resultant inability to attend the scheduled court date.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition challenging the decision of the trial court that closed the opportunity of the petitioner for cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, and also rejected the application filed under Section 311 CrPC.

“It is, therefore, imperative that the invocation of Section 311 CrPC and its application in a particular case can be ordered by the court, only by bearing in mind the object and purport of the said provision, namely, for achieving a just decision of the case as noted by us earlier. The power vested under the said provision is made available to any court at any stage in any inquiry or trial or other proceeding initiated under the Code…”

Poverty Can't Be Bar To Parole: Rajasthan High Court Waives Surety Condition For Indigent Life Convict, Frames Guidelines

Title: Khartaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 8

The Rajasthan High Court has held that any insistence on sureties from an indigent prisoner as a precondition for being released on parole, who is unable to fulfil that condition, especially after repeated judicial interventions in the past that waived that requirement, is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and morally indefensible.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Farjand Ali held that the condition of furnishing personal bond and/or surety as delineated under Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (“the Rules”) was directory and not mandatory or punitive in nature. And such discretion had to be exercised by the authorities in a positive manner to actualize the prisoner's release.

While underscoring the unconstitutionality in the actions of the State, the Court held that a prisoner did not cease to be a rights-bearing individual merely because he was incarcerated. And further, economic incapacity could not be a constitutionally valid basis for hostile discrimination against the haves and have-nots.

Rape By Father 'Transcends Ordinary Criminality'; Victim-Daughter's Testimony Sufficient: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Manoj v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 9

While dismissing an appeal against a rape conviction in a POCSO Case, the Rajasthan High Court held that the testimony of the victim herself, being the daughter of the convict, constituted the best possible evidence of the occurrence, since there was no reason for her to falsely implicate her own father.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma further opined that the delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained in light of social stigma, family circumstances, and gravity of allegations, and mere delay in such circumstances could not be a ground to discard the prosecution case.

The Court observed that sexual offences against children inflicted trauma that not only confined to physical injury but penetrated deeply into the psychological and emotional core of the victim, eroding trust, security and human dignity.

“Where the offender is the father—the very person entrusted as the child's natural protector—the offence transcends ordinary criminality and assumes an abhorrent and grotesque character.”

Scheduled Areas Can Be Included In Municipal Limits Absent Governor's Exclusion Order: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Anil Kumar Meena & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 10

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a bunch of petitions challenging notification issued by the State Government under Section 3 read with Section 329 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009 (“the Act”), wherein several villages and Gram Panchayat areas that fell under the Scheduled Areas, notified under Para 6(2) of the 5^th Schedule, were included in municipal limits.

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit held that such inclusion was not unconstitutional in absence of any exclusionary or modificatory notification by the Governor under Para 5(1) of the 5^th schedule.

The Court held that the municipal inclusion of a Scheduled Area did not dilute or extinguish its constitutional status under Article 244 read with 5^th Schedule, and all protection, obligations and supervisory mechanisms continued to operate in full force.

Mass Transfer Of Teachers Mid-Academic Session 'Arbitrary', Disturbs Education Ecosystem: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Hargovind Meena v Secretary, School Education Department, Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 11

While staying transfer of a Government school principal, Rajasthan High Court held it to be arbitrary and damaging to the education as it was ordered in the middle of the academic session.

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain said that such mass transfers in September not only disrupted classes and students' continuity but also reflected the lack of administrative sensitivity towards the school systems.

While terming the transfer to be contrary to the principles of good governance, the bench held,

“It is not expected that the Government may transfer teachers on a mass scale in the mid of an educational session, which is going to conclude within another six months. Such action not only impacts the future of students, but also affects the aspirations of parents who cannot afford private or public school education for their children. Probably, this is one of the reasons why top Government officials or persons having sufficient means, admit their children to private schools.”

Outstanding Sportsperson Quota: Rajasthan High Court Prescribes Five-Step Scrutiny, Seeks Reconsideration Of Nursing Officer Candidates

Title: Sumitra Runla v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 12

While hearing a bunch of petitions by candidates for the post of Nursing officer, seeking their consideration under Outstanding Sports Person Category, Rajasthan High Court held that such claims had to be examined by the concerned State body in accordance with policy of State mentioned in the circular dated May 27, 2022 by the Department of Personnel (K-2).

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain held that the claims had to be examined in three counts: 1) Level of Participation; 2) Type of Event; 3) Performance, and laid down the following 5 steps for such examination.

Different Age Criteria For Contractual And Regular Appointments Unconstitutional: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Shobha v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 13

The Rajasthan High Court has struck down Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 (“2022 Rules”) as unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14 & 16, as it prescribed 21 years as eligibility criteria for contractual recruitment to a post as compared to 18 years prescribed by Rajasthan Medical Health And Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (“1965 Rules”) for regular recruitment to the same post.

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi highlighted that the educational qualifications, nature of work, scope of duties and responsibilities, required for the post under contractual and regular appointment were identical, and hence, the different eligibility criteria between the two modes of appointment were not based on any intelligible differentia.

“There exists no intelligible differentia which distinguishes the candidates who are grouped together by applying Rules of 1965 from those who have been grouped separately by applying Rules of 2022 so as to prescribe a different minimum age eligibility. It goes without saying that mere classification itself is not enough, for the simple reason that anything can be classified and every discriminatory action must of necessity fall in some category of classification. Therefore, classification has to be demonstrably based upon substantive differences and should achieve relevant objects that have constitutional validity.”

Addition Of Graver, Non-Bailable Offence During Probe Justifies Cancellation Of Bail Granted By IO: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dinesh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 14

Rajasthan High Court held that the bail granted by the IO to the accused deserved to be cancelled pursuant to the addition of graver and non-bailable offences during the course of investigation.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand upheld the decision of a Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) that cancelled the bail of the petitioner after the charge of a non-bailable offence (causing grievous hurt) was added to the charges against the petitioner based on re-examination of the injury report by a higher rank officer.

“It is the settled proposition of law that the benefit of bail granted by the Investigating Officer to the accused persons deserves to be cancelled on addition of graver and non-bailable offence during the course of investigation, hence under these circumstances, this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the Court below.”

Rajasthan High Court Orders Reinstatement Of Constables Dismissed Without Regular Enquiry Over Accused's Escape From Custody

Title: Mohan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 15

Rajasthan High Court directed reinstatement of three constables, dismissed from service without conduct of regular enquiry under State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, after two accused absconded from their custody charged with looting.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma opined that merely the nature of offence committed by the absconded accused could not be a determining factor for exercising powers under Rule 19 of the Rules.

The Court observed that it was a settled position of law that even though the delinquent people may be accused of heinous misconduct, they had minimum right to face regular enquiry so that they could put forward their defence.

Termination Violating S.25F Industrial Disputes Act Doesn't Automatically Lead To Reinstatement: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Satya Narain v the Judge, Central Industrial Tribunal & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 16

The Rajasthan High Court has partly upheld the order of a Labour Court which directed monetary compensation to the petitioner, instead of reinstatement, despite ruling his termination to be in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”).

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that even though a violation of Section 25F rendered the retrenchment illegal, the nature of the relief was not automatically reinstatement but dependent on the facts of each case.

Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Bhurumal that opined that, “in cases involving daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual employees, particularly where the engagement was for a short duration and the dispute has been adjudicated after a long lapse of time, monetary compensation is a more appropriate and equitable relief than reinstatement. The Apex Court has cautioned against mechanical reinstatement which may disturb the administrative and financial equilibrium of the employer.”

State Cannot Exploit Workers By Keeping Them In 'Perpetual Temporariness': Rajasthan High Court Orders Regularisation Of Part-Time Employee

Title: Satu Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 17

The Rajasthan High Court directed regularization of the petitioner engaged by the State on a part-time basis, who continued uninterrupted services for several years and performed identical duties to that of regularly appointed employees, opining that not being appointed on a sanctioned post could not be a ground to deny benefit of regularization to the petitioner.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that even though regularization could not be claimed as a matter of right, the constitutional principles did not permit the State to exploit labour by keeping them in a state of perpetual temporariness while extracting regular and continuous work.

Accepted Auction Bid Creates Legitimate Expectation; State Can't Cancel Without Reasons: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Jayendra Singh Sishodia v Rajasthan Housing Board, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 18

The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a bid is accepted at the auction venue, followed by immediate deposit of stipulated amount, the relationship between the State and the bidder progresses beyond mere offer, and a legitimate expectation coupled with the obligation of fairness arises in favour of the bidder.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali thus set aside unilateral cancellation of an auction by the State without assigning any reasons to the accepted bidder, based on an internal file noting, and held that discretion vested in an authority did not elevate the office to the position of a monarch or a king.

Employee's Reinstatement On Court Order Doesn't Bar Disciplinary Enquiry For Past Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dr. Smt. Hemlata Tetwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 19

The Rajasthan High Court has held that reinstatement of a government employee after consideration of his/her representation based on a court order was not equivalent to condonation of the misconduct, and it did not take away the State's right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee for the same period.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma clarified that unless a specific order was passed that condoned the misconduct, reinstatement by itself, following judicial order, did not preclude the State from conducting disciplinary enquiry.

“The penalty imposed does not shock the conscience of this Court, nor can it be termed outrageously disproportionate. It is well settled that mere harshness of punishment is not a ground for judicial interference. Unless the penalty is such that no reasonable employer would have imposed it in the given facts, the Court must refrain from substituting its own sense of proportionality.”

Auction Cancellation Must Be Based On Objective Criteria, Not Post-Facto Subjective Satisfaction: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Javari v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 20

The Rajasthan High Court held that whether an auction bid was fair or competitive was not a post-facto subjective notion, rather an assessment founded on objective criteria, demonstrable from the auction proceedings themselves and recorded contemporaneously with clarity and specificity.

While setting aside unilateral and unreasoned cancellation of auction post acceptance of deposit by the State, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that mere invocation of power of cancellation without providing reasons or precise deficiency that vitiated the auction process, rendered the cancellation legally unsustainable.

25% RTE Quota Applies To Pre-Primary Classes, Limiting It To Class I Disadvantageous To Children From Weaker Sections: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rukmani Birla Modern High School v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 21

Rajasthan High Court held that that the obligation to reserve 25% seats under the Right to Education Act, 2009 (“the Act”) was applicable not only to the Class I but also to all pre-primary levels wherever such education was offered.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu opined that by restricting the applicability to Class I, the purpose of the Act would be defeated since the students from weaker sections would be in a disadvantaged position as compared to other children who would have already studied in pre-primary classes.

“It is common knowledge that in schools which are unaided, admissions are not only given at Class-I level but are also given in the Montessori level, i.e., Pre Primary Schools. The students studying in those schools then get admitted in the same school at Class-I level…Thus, if a student coming from the marginalized and weaker section of the society is not allowed to be admitted at the Pre Primary level, he/she would not be able to compete and reach the same stage as those who are admitted with them at Class-I level.”

“Symbols Of Rajput Pride Reduced To Picnic Spots”: Rajasthan High Court Flags Littering, Encroachments At Haldighati & Rakht Talai

Title: In RE: Protection and Preservation of the Historic Sites of Haldighati and Rakht Talai, District Udaipur.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 22

While hearing a PIL based on suo moto cognizance of a news report highlighting the neglected and degraded condition of the historic sites of Haldighati Pass and the Rakht Talai, Rajasthan High Court held that such systemic failure on part of the Central and State governments constituted violation of Articles 21, 49 and 51A(g) of the Constitution.

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit issued notices to the Central and State Governments with a direction to file affidavits detailing the steps taken for preservation of the sites, and measures to address encroachments, pollution and restoration.

Litigant Can't Suffer For Counsel Noting Wrong Date: Rajasthan High Court Restores Suit Subject To Costs, Planting 25 Trees

Title: Smt. Rashidan & Anr. v Smt. Noorjahan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 23

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a litigant cannot be made to suffer for an inadvertent mistake on part of his/her counsel in noting the next date of hearing of case, and thus quashed the trial court order that rejected petitioner's restoration application on technical grounds of delay in an eviction suit that was dismissed in default.

While directing restoration of the matter, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand imposed a cost of INR 10,000 on the petitioner, as well as directed him to plant 25 saplings of shade bearing trees in a public vicinity and submit their photographs to the Court as proof, along with an undertaking to take care of them.

'Nata Vivah' Recognised As Marriage: Rajasthan High Court Directs Family Pension To Deceased Govt Employee's Wife

Title: Ram Pyari Suman v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 24

Considering that Nata Vivah is also considered as a form of marriage in rural areas of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court has directed grant of family pension to a woman, who performed the customary marriage with the deceased government employee.

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain noted that “Nata Vivah” was also recognized by Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, if performed in accordance with customary rites and ceremonies.

The Court was hearing a petition by a women claiming to be legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and thus seeking family pension post the employee's death which was denied by the State for the lack of any official record of the marriage.

Regarding argument of the petitioner not being nominated as family member, reference was made to the coordinate bench decision in Urmila Devi v State of Rajasthan that held that even if there existed matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife, and the latter was not nominated as a family member, she was entitled to service benefits after the employee's death as she was not legally divorced.

Minor Discrepancies, Hostile Witnesses Can't Derail Conviction: Rajasthan HC Upholds S.324 IPC Conviction, Reduces Sentence After 33 Years

Title: Babu Lal & Anr. v the State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 25

While hearing appeals against conviction orders for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt (section 324, IPC) Rajasthan High Court held that minor discrepancies in the cross-examination owing to natural lapse of memory did not falsify the prosecution case.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga further opined that hostility of witnesses, which was common in criminal trials, was a clear indication of them being influenced but that could not operate as an advantage to the accused and negate an otherwise cogent, consistent and trustworthy evidence on record.

On the point of hostility of prosecution witnesses, it was held that such hostility could not nullify an otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence.

Furthermore, the Court opined that absence of proof of motive did not, by itself, discredit the prosecution case in light of otherwise clear and convincing evidence establishing the guilt.

It was observed that even though motive was relevant, it was not a sine qua non for conviction if there was direct or circumstantial evidence that undisputedly reflected appellant's guilt.

Disciplinary Orders Must Show 'Real Consideration' Of Employee's Defence, Not Mechanically Recite “Considered”: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rajesh Kumar Tiwari v the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 26

The Rajasthan High Court has held that merely reciting in the disciplinary order and the appellate order that the records have been “considered” could not be treated as a valid and objective consideration in the legal sense, and was an empty formality.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma further held that since penalty order and appellate order caused serious prejudice to the delinquent employee and adversely impacted his future promotions, the reasons to arrive at a particular conclusion were bound to be part of the orders and not just be present in the note-sheets of the officials.

“The disciplinary authority is under a legal obligation to apply its independent and judicious mind to the entire material on record, including the specific points of defence raised by the delinquent. Such consideration must be reflected from the penalty order itself, by way of cogent reasons indicating as to why the explanation or defence has been accepted or rejected.”

Inadvertent OMR Error Can't Cause Irreparable Prejudice: Rajasthan High Court Restores JET-2025 B.Tech Admission

Title: Rohit Godara v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 27

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to the petitioner whose provisional admission to the B.Tech course was cancelled owing to his error in filling his attempted subjects in the OMR for Joint Entrance Test (JET) 2025, opining it to be an inadvertent mistake and a venial lapse on this part.

The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati observed that the petitioner ought to have been more vigilant during the examination, however, there was no deliberate misrepresentation on his part, and nullifying his admission for such an inadvertent error would cause him an irreparable prejudice.

“The documents rather indicate an inadvertent error whereby the petitioner marked the column for the subject Agriculture while answering questions for the subject Physics. Admittedly, the petitioner ought to have been more vigilant during the examination, however, no deliberate misrepresentation or suppression of facts is discernible.”

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Stale Pension Claim, Raps State For Losing Service Records

Title: Gopal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 28

The Rajasthan High Court has held that even though loss or misplacement of service records by the State is a serious administrative failure, the same cannot by itself create a substantive right for an employee to get pension.

At the same time, the bench of Justice Anand Sharma expressed strong disapproval of the State's plea in the matter that the service records of the petitioner were lost. It held that the State is the trustee of public records, and could not be allowed to take shelter behind such a bald assertion.

“Service records constitute the foundational basis for determining the rights and entitlements of an employee and are required to be maintained and preserved with due care in accordance with the statutory rules and administrative instructions…Such conduct not only demonstrates administrative reluctance but also erodes public confidence in governance and accountability. The loss or misplacement of service records is not a mere procedural lapse, but a serious dereliction of duty for which responsibility must be fixed.”

Single Blunt Blow Causing Grievous Injury Not Attempt To Murder Without Homicidal Intent: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Radhakishan & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 29

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a single blow on head with a blunt object resulting in grievous injury does not quality as an attempt to murder in absence of repeated blows with such ferocity that reflect a deliberate design to extinguish life, since mens rea of a homicidal degree is sine qua non for the offence of attempt to murder.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further observed that every inimical relationship or alleged animosity does not ipso facto translate into an intention to kill. For the offence of attempt to murder, the animosity has to be so acute and intense that it reasonably leads to the inference that one party intended to eliminate the other.

“While animosity and inimical relations are alleged, it is well-settled that every inimical relationship does not ipso facto translate into an intention to kill. Animosity is a double-edged sword; it may provide motive for false implication as much as it may explain the occurrence. For invoking Section 307 IPC, the animosity must be of such an acute and intense degree that it reasonably leads to the inference that one party intended to eliminate the other.”

Family Courts Must Recognise Valid Divorce Under Muslim Law: Rajasthan High Court Lays Guidelines To Recognize Extra-Judicial Divorces

Title: Ayasha Chouhan v Waseem Khan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 30

The Rajashtan High Court has held that Family Courts are bound to recognize and declare dissolution of marriage, where a valid divorce had already taken place under Muslim Personal Law through 'Talaq-ul-Hasan' or 'Mubarat', and such relief could not be denied on "hyper-technical fronts".

Considering the submissions by counsel for the parties that petitions seeking dissolution of marriage by invocation of Muslim Law were routinely rejected by the Family Courts, the division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit laid down guidelines for family courts in the State.

“Family Court is competent to endorse extra Judicial divorces such as khula and mubaarat after verifying their validity through a summary process, primarily ensuring voluntariness and proper documentation. The Supreme Court…reaffirmed that a Mubaarat agreement, entered into voluntarily by both parties, is a valid mode of divorce under Muslim law, and the Family Court can declare the marital status as dissolved based on such an agreement.”

Scholarship Granted To Woman Before Marriage Doesn't Bar Her Husband's Claim Post-Marriage: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Devendra Kumar Kothari v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 31

While granting relief to a man who was denied the Swami Vivekanand Scholarship for Academic Excellence, the Rajasthan High Court has held that rejecting the scholarship solely based on the fact the applicant's wife was also granted benefit of the scholarship before the wedding, was not legally tenable and ran contrary to the very intent of the Scholarship Schemes.

While analyzing the situation in light of restriction of the scholarship to only one family-member, the bench of Justice Anuroop Singhi highlighted that grant of one scholarship to a female candidate could not result in ineligibility for two families by shifting the definition of “family” after that female's marriage.

'Beyond Imagination': High Court Flags Inadequate Water, Unhygienic Conditions In Rajasthan Jails, Orders Statewide Inspections

Title: Peoples Watch Rajasthan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 32

The Rajasthan High Court has taken note of inadequate and unhygienic sanitation facilities for jail inmates in the State and has directed the authorities to constitute a “Grievance Redressal Committee” consisting of District Magistrates and Judges, Chief Judicial Magistrates, District Social Welfare Officers, Superintendent of Jail, Secretaries DSLA of all districts of Rajasthan, to examine prisoners' grievances.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the members of the committee to make sudden inspection of the jails on any day within three weeks, and privately interview as many prisoners as they consider necessary, and submit a report to the Court.

It further directed the Member Secretary, RSLA, to look into the matter and monitor the effective implementation of this order, and submit a report to the Court before the next date.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Bank To Freeze Only Disputed Amount In Cybercrime Case, Not Entire Account

Title: Vatsal Bindal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 33

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to a petitioner whose bank account was frozen by the Bank of Baroda, since the account was in receipt of some amount allegedly in relation to a cyber-crime complaint.

While disposing the writ petition, the bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal, directed the bank to keep only such amount frozen in the petitioner's account that was allegedly transferred illegally while allowing the petitioner to freely use his account and make transactions using the remaining balance.

The Court further observed that in case the bank had not received any information regarding the exact figure of the disputed amount, which was alleged by the police to have been received, it shall send a communication to the concerned Investigating Officer/Police to know the amount to be earmarked for lien.

Unproved Witness Statement To Police Can't Be Used In Disciplinary Proceedings: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Govt Officer's Pension Forfeiture

Title: Vilayati Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 34

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the disciplinary action against a government officer stopping his 100% pension for life, which was solely based on statements of a person given to the police under Section 161 CrPC who was neither examined during the departmental enquiry nor before court.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that a statement given under Section 161 CrPC, held no evidentiary value under Section 162 CrPC, and could be used only for the purpose of contradiction, but not as substantive evidence, unless the witness was examined.

"In the present case, the material on record clearly indicates that the petitioner was exonerated in the criminal case and there is nothing on record to show that any criminal appeal has been filed, to challenge the judgment of acquittal. Similarly, the Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings has also recorded a finding that the petitioner was not guilty of either of the charges. The Disciplinary Authority has reversed these findings solely on the basis of the statement of a witness who was neither produced in the inquiry proceedings nor in criminal trial, thus no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the present petitioner".

Rajasthan High Court Slams Lawyers' Strike Over Working Saturdays, Says Boycott Of Courts Violates Litigants' Rights Under Article 21

Title: Rajesh Kushwah v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 35

The Rajasthan High Court has frowned upon lawyers' strike to protest against its decision making two Saturdays working in every month, reiterating that lawyers have no right to strike especially when the matter involves personal liberty of citizens.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that when lawyers boycott Courts, it results in direct violation of the litigants' rights to speedy justice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court opined that the right to protest has to be balanced with the rights of other citizens such as the right to life and personal liberty.

“Going on strike and remaining absent from Court work is not a solution. All problems have solution and can be settled by debates and dialogues. Every challenge has a solution. Debates and dialogues can lead to a better understanding and also necessary for achieving any solutions… Inspite of above, a call of strike/remaining absent from work by the lawyers is not warranted.”

Poverty Can't Defeat Liberty: Rajasthan High Court Recalls ₹1 Lakh Deposit Condition, Orders Release Of NDPS Convict

Title: Rajesh Kushwah v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 35

The Rajasthan High Court has recalled the monetary condition imposed on the release of the applicant, an NDPS convict, owing to which he was not able to get out of jail, despite being released from prison on bail after around 8 years, and directed the trial court to release him.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that poverty and penalty should not hinder the right to life and liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, of the accused who was released from jail.

The Court highlighted that the order was given in light of peculiar circumstances of the case, and shall not be used as a precedent, and directed the copy to be sent to the Bar Council of India as well as Bar Council of Rajasthan.

'No One Above Law': Rajasthan High Court Issues Show-Cause Notice To Deputy Collector For Defying Judicial Orders

Title: Kesar Devi v Guddi Devi & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 36

The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of a Deputy District Collector and Magistrate's repeated non-compliance of its orders requiring expeditious adjudication of an application filed by a 70 year old widow under the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (“the Act”).

While underscoring the object of the Act to provide financial security to senior citizens, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand stated that the Act was designed for rapid relief. It held that the Magistrate could not be allowed to sit over the matter for indefinite period of time and deliberately flout the directions of the Court.

The Court further observed that no one is above law, and the legal orders had to be universally obeyed to maintain the majesty of law, and also order and justice in the society.

Trial Can't Proceed Without Deciding Plea Of Unsoundness Of Mind Under BNSS: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Amit Rathor v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 37

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a trial court order directing continuation of trial merely based on medical report concluding the petitioner to be of sound mind, without any reasoned adjudication on the application filed under Section 368 BNSS.

Section 368 BNSS lays down the procedure for trial of a person of unsound mind.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that before proceedings with the trial, the trial court is mandated to decide the application under Section 368, BNSS. Hence, while setting aside the challenged order, the trial court was directed to pass a reasoned/speaking order on the application.

Railways Responsible For Goods Till Proper Delivery: Rajasthan High Court Upholds ₹10 Lakh Compensation For Damaged Consignment

Title: Union of India & Ors. v the Gujrat State Fertilizer and Chemical Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 38

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the compensation of nearly Rs. 10 lakhs imposed on the Western Railway towards damaged consignment of fertilisers, opining that even after being unloaded at the destination, the consignment remained under the control and supervision of the Railways.

While highlighting utmost carelessness and negligence on part of the Railways, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that no special efforts were made by the Railways to protect the goods of the claimant that were lying in the open, being exposed to rain.

It was held that if a covered shed was not available at the destination, it was Railway's duty to protect the consignment by providing tarpaulin.

February 2026

'Jurisdictional Transgression': Rajasthan High Court Quashes Lok Adalat Order On Title Dispute

Title: Urban Improvement Trust v Poonam Chand

Citation: 2026 Live Law (Raj) 39

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) cannot decide dispute on issuance of pattas (title deed) since it involves determination of land title, ownership and proprietary rights which are matters of serious civil consequences requiring full-fledged adjudication under the procedure of law.

While setting aside an order by a Permanent Lok Adalat, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the salutary object of expeditious and efficient adjudication with which PLAs were constituted could not be achieved by bypassing the legally mandated procedures. It was opined that every legal process could not be shortened in the name of speed.

“PLA is a quasi judicial authority having a limited and circumscribed jurisdiction. The PLA is not a court of plenary jurisdiction and does not possess the authority to adjudicate disputes by adopting the regular and elaborate procedure of law as is required in civil proceedings… It was never the legislative intent to convert the PLA into an alternative forum to civil courts for adjudication of intricate civil disputes, especially those involving property rights, succession, transfer, or competing claims of ownership.”

Non-Borrowers Can Approach DRT If Affected By SARFAESI Action, Writ Not Maintainable: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rajeev Bhandari v Jodhpur Development authority & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 40

While rejecting the writ petition filed by a flat purchaser which was declared a secured asset, the Rajasthan High Court held that even if a person was not a borrower or a guarantor, s/he was entitled to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) if their rights were affected by the notice issued under the SARFAESI Act, and they were “aggrieved person”.

Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. which held that borrower, guarantor or any person who may be affected could approach the Tribunal.

In this light, the Court opined, “Although, the petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor, however, since his rights are grievously affected by the impugned notice, he is an aggrieved person and can very well approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal”.

Dual Claims Under MV Act and Workman's Compensation Act Impermissible: Rajasthan High Court Orders Refund To Insurer

Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. v Manju Bai & Ors., and anr. connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 41

The Rajasthan High Court has asserted that claimants cannot be allowed to claim compensation both under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”) and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (“WC Act”), for the same accident, and opined that once the compensation was received under one Act, filing subsequent claim under another Act was abuse of the process of law.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected the argument that compensation awarded by one forum could be adjusted against the amount awarded by another, and observed that the Courts could not be treated as a bargaining forum.

“Such argument of the counsel for the claimants-respondents has no force because the Courts cannot be treated as a bargaining forums and the claimants cannot be allowed to approach two different forums and if they feel that they have not got sufficient amount of compensation then for getting more compensation they can approach the subsequent forum.”

Past Minor Penalties Can't Trump Consistent 'Outstanding' Service Record: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Compulsory Retirement

Title: Arvind Charan v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 42

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the order of compulsory retirement of a police inspector based on “ineffectiveness”, opining it to be arbitrary and based on selective reliance on minor penalties while ignoring his consistent outstanding service record that reflected “good” and “very good” performance.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the State failed to follow the binding guidelines under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (“the Rules”) and the circular dated April 21, 2000 issued by the Department of Personnel (DoP) that laid down that if compulsory retirement was proposed based on “ineffectiveness”, the employee's performance of past 5 years had to be considered primarily.

Rajasthan High Court Calls For Nationwide Public Awareness Campaign Against Digital Scams, Flags Misuse Of Social Media Data

Title: Vivek Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 43

While expressing pain over the rise in digital scams costing people their hard-earned money, Rajasthan High Court said that it is right time to launch a public campaign through print, electronic, social media, television and radio, to reach the general public and create awareness about remaining careful while doing any online transactions.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further took note of data being sold by some of the social media companies which gets misused, and said that strict action must be taken against all the delinquents, including such companies.

High Income Of Husband Doesn't Automatically Mean High Maintenance For Wife: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ritu Khatri v Navneet Khanna

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 44

The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition filed by a wife seeking enhancement of maintenance from Rs. 8000 per month, on the ground that the husband was earning more than Rs. 1.5 Lakhs per month, opining that maintenance could not be claimed on a straight-jacket formula that a fixed proportion of husband's income had to be awarded.

"The law does not envisage that because the husband earns more, the wife must necessarily receive half or a substantial fraction thereof. Such an approach would amount to converting maintenance proceedings into a de facto claim for sharing of income or property, which is impermissible," Justice Farjand Ali said.

The Court further opined that the respondent's conduct of regularly depositing maintenance could also not be brushed aside lightly since that reflected bona fides, gentlemanship and a responsible approach towards judicial orders.

“Courts are not oblivious to conduct of parties, as equity and good conscience are integral to the dispensation of justice.”

Court Must Examine Process Server Before Proceeding Ex-Parte On Alleged Refusal Of Summons: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Devkrishna & Ors. v Kaluram & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 45

The Rajasthan High Court has held that accepting report of service of summons is a solemn act and not merely a formality. It is court's duty to examine the process serving officer if the report was not an affidavit. And even if the report was on affidavit, it is court's discretion to examine the officer to ascertain the correctness of the report.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the intention of serving summons was to make the party aware of proceedings against him/her so that no decision was reached behind his/her back. Hence, it is court's primary duty to adhere to all procedural requirements prior to proceeding ex-parte against the concerned party.

“Proof of the service of summons is essential condition for proceeding ex-parte against the concerned defendant. It was incumbent on the part of the trial Court to examine the Process Server and the witnesses of the refused notice/summon on oath. Obviously, the intention of such examination is to see that chances of a false endorsement of such attempt to serve the summons and refusal thereof are minimized.”

Advocate Forced To Litigate For Fees, Paid After 15-Year Delay By State

Title: Ms Manju Jain v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 46

A woman advocate practicing for almost 32 years at the Rajasthan High Court, received her professional fees for acting as advocate for the National Rural Health Mission (“NRHM”) in 84 petitions, only after 15 years, upon filing a legal case against the State.

The petitioner was engaged by NRHM in 2010 as its advocate for appearing in a bunch of 84 petitions which were decided by the Court in 2011. Subsequently, an invoice of Rs. 4.25 Lakhs was raised by the petitioner towards these petitions.

It was only after almost 7 years of the case being filed, that an affidavit was filed by the concerned Project Director, NRHM, declaring a cheque of Rs. 4.25 Lakhs being handed over to the petitioner towards her professional fees.

Based on this affidavit and the cheque received by the petitioner, withdrawal application was filed before the Court which was allowed by the bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena.

Wrong Charge Strikes At Root Of Disciplinary Action: Rajasthan High Court Reinstates CRPF Constable

Title: Hans Raj v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 47

The Rajasthan High Court has held that while the form of the charge sheet overrides the substance but when its foundation itself is based on a wrong charge, the State cannot subsequently dilute or reinterpret the charge to suit the outcome of the enquiry.

While setting aside the suspension of the petitioner-constable, the bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that the disciplinary authority has to classify the misconduct correctly before proceedings to punishment, otherwise the entire action becomes arbitrary.

After hearing the contentions, the Court rejected the argument put forth by the State and held,

“The submission of the respondents that the use of the term “deserter” is inconsequential and that the proceedings must be read as relating to absence without leave cannot be accepted… while form cannot override substance, the nature of the charge determines the standard of proof, procedural safeguards and proportionality of punishment. Where the charge-sheet itself proceeds on the premise hat the delinquent has “deserted the Force”, the respondents cannot subsequently dilute or reinterpret the charge to suit the outcome of the enquiry.”

Relief Can't Be Denied Just Because Officer Didn't Approach Court: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Stigmatic Remarks

Title: Vimal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 48

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief of expunging adverse remarks made by the trial court not only against the petitioner police officer, but also against another officer who did not approach the court for relief.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman held that just because the other officer did not approach the court, it could not be said that the adverse remarks made against him were correct. It was held, based on the principle of parity, when a specific action was found to be legally infirm, the benefit extended to one party had to be extended to others similarly placed.

POCSO Act Ignores 'Adolescent Autonomy': Rajasthan High Court Suggests Govt To Exempt Consensual Relationships Of Young Adults

Title: Aryan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 49

The Rajasthan High Court has urged the Centre to comprehensively review the statutory framework under the POCSO Act, in light of the existing gap between the protective intent of the Act and the sociological reality of adolescent autonomy.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman suggested to consider introduction of a clause granting exemption in cases where the supposed perpetrator and victim were young adults of almost same age, in a consensual relationship.

It observed that POCSO Act was enacted to protect children from sexual predators. It could not be used to persecute young adults, involved in consensual but socially unacceptable relationships.

The Court held that rigidly applying POCSO in a case involving a 17 year old girl and a 19 years old boy in a consensual relationship, ignored the lived reality of adolescent autonomy and converted a protective status into a punitive tool of social regulation.

Pending Criminal Case Doesn't Bar Passport Renewal, NOC From Court Not Needed In Absence Of Restraint Order: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Pradeep Kumar Sarwogi v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 50

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the Passport authorities can't compel an applicant to get permission of criminal court for passport renewal, merely due to pendency of criminal proceedings against him, especially when the proceedings were stayed and the court had not restrained possession of passport.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 (the Act) does not contemplate an absolute or automatic bar on issuance/renewal of passport, solely due to pendency of criminal proceedings. The restriction is qualified, purpose-oriented and meant to secure amenability of accused to criminal jurisdiction.

It was held that difference between renewal of a passport and permission to leave the country was fundamental, wherein renewal by itself just enabled possession of a valid civil document, without conferring any right to travel or diluting authority of criminal court.

State Authorities Bound To Register Marriages Solemnized Under Christian Marriage Act; Rajasthan 2009 Law No Bar: High Court

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 51

In a significant order passed last week, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the State authorities to mandatorily accept, record and register all Christian marriages solemnized in accordance with the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (ICM Act), in respect of which a certificate has been issued under the Act.

In its detailed order, a Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sangeeta Sharma has sought to clarify the prevailing confusion in the state regarding the interplay between the ICM Act 1872 and the Rajasthan Compulsory Marriage Registration Act, 2009 (RCMR Act).

Importantly, the Court has clarified that there is no apparent incongruity between the ICM Act 1872 and the RCMR Act 2009. The Court noted the exclusion of Christian marriages from the 2009 Act under Section 20 is a 'protective' mechanism rather than 'exclusionary'.

The Bench emphasized that the processes of registration, acknowledgment, and endorsement of marriages by civil authorities perform a "vital public function".

"They bridge the sphere of religious or personal law solemnization with the secular framework of State-maintained civil records, ensuring that marriages are capable of objective verification in dealings with public authorities and private institutions alike", the Court noted.

Interim Maintenance Prevents Hardship, Doesn't Decide Entitlement: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Enhance ₹40K Interim Maintenance

Title: Divik Ostwal v Ambika Jain and other connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 52

While rejecting the revision petition filed by the wife seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance, Rajasthan High Court held that such relief was discretionary and temporary, to prevent destitution of the aggrieved during the proceedings, which was granted by the court without undertaking a detailed adjudication.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that grant of interim maintenance was not final or conclusive determination either of the wife's entitlement or the quantum of the same. It was observed that such maintenance did not amount to determination of arrears or conferring any share in the husband's income.

“The very nature of interim maintenance presupposes that the Court is not expected to undertake a detailed roving inquiry or a meticulous adjudication on disputed questions of fact, which are otherwise within the exclusive domain of the final adjudication after evidence is led by the parties.”

'Unnatural Behaviour For Victim To Accompany Rapist': Rajasthan High Court Acquits Former Sarpanch In POCSO Case

Title: Lajendra Singh v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 53

While setting aside a POCSO conviction against a former Sarpanch, Rajasthan High Court observed that it was highly improbable that once rape was committed upon a minor girl, she would voluntarily accompany the alleged perpetrator to another place.

Furthermore, while raising suspicion over the age of the victim, the division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma opined that while a school certificate was relevant, when contradictory material existed in government documents, the earliest admission record assumed determinative significance.

“When the evidence is appreciated cumulatively, it becomes evident that the prosecution case is riddled with inconsistencies, omissions, and investigative deficiencies…The minority of the prosecutrix is not conclusively established; the foundational story is improbable; the delay in FIR is unexplained; the earliest version is withheld; independent corroborative evidence is absent; and the medical evidence does not support the prosecution narrative.”

Public Servant Can't Exit Service By Resignation To Frustrate Disciplinary Inquiry: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Dismissal

Title: Mahaveer Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 54

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an RAS officer challenging rejection of his resignation by the State as well as an order imposing penalty of removal from service, opining that considering the conduct of the petitioner, the State's actions did not suffer from any legal infirmity.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that no vested or automatic right was created in favour of the employee merely by filing a resignation, especially when the State was contemplating initiation of departmental proceedings against the employee.

“…resignation tendered by a public servant cannot be construed as an absolute right to exit service, particularly when departmental proceedings for serious misconduct are under contemplation or actively pending. The acceptance of resignation remains within the discretionary domain of the competent authority, who after weighing the larger public interest, the gravity of allegations and the necessity to uphold administrative discipline against the employee's convenience.”

Daily-Wage Workers Can't Afford Unpaid Weekly Offs: Rajasthan HC Rejects 26-Day Wage Formula, Seeks Correction Of Govt Order

Title: Laxman Kumawat v Madan Singh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 55

While underscoring the ground realities of working conditions for daily-wage workers, Rajasthan High Court held that not every daily wage worker received paid-rest day every week. Hence, they cannot afford such unpaid rest day. Therefore, calculation of a daily wage worker's monthly wage should not happen based on 26 days, rather than 30 days.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the 26-day rule was followed based on a notification/circular issued by the Ministry & Department of Labour, which presumed that such labour remained on holiday for one day every week, based on mandates of Labour Laws that required workers to get at least one day off per week.

However, the Court highlighted that the ground reality was completely different wherein not a single daily wager got paid for any of the rest days. And in this light, considering the financial situation of such labour, they cannot afford to take rest days which were unpaid.

Presumption Favors Claimant In Railway Accident Claims; Non-Recovery Of Ticket Not Fatal: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Smt. Gulab Devi v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 56

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of the Railways Claims Tribunal that rejected a claim filed by the petitioner in relation to her son's death, opining that whenever any untoward incident happens within the Railway premises or any railway track, the presumption lies against the Railway Authorities unless any evidence is submitted, suggesting otherwise.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed by a mother challenging rejection of her claim filed in relation to her son's death following an untoward incident while he was allegedly travelling in the train.

Rajasthan High Court Orders Full Back Wages For Employee Who Was Wrongfully Compulsorily Retired, Slams 'No Work, No Pay' Argument

Title: KC Jain v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 57

The Rajasthan High Court directed the State to pay salary and wages to the petitioner for the period of his compulsory retirement following the decision of the appellate authority that set aside the order of compulsory retirement after finding that the petitioner's past service records were not so poor to warrant such action.

The bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar made reference to a Supreme Court case of Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Ors. in which similar matter was dealt with and it was held,

“…appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant…Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services…the respondent cannot be allowed to press the self-serving plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on the plea of the principle of "no work pay."

Rajasthan HC Orders DNA Test Of 93-Year-Old To Determine Daughter's Maternity In Property Dispute, Says No Presumption Of Maternity In Law

Title: Smt. Bhauri Devi v Mahendra Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 58

While terming it a “rarest of rare cases” where the mother was denying a child to be her's, Rajasthan High Court directed a 93 year old woman to undergo DNA test, to determine maternity of the petitioner who was claiming share in her father's ancestral property.

The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta expressed astonishment over the situation, and referred to the provisions under Indian Evidence Act, and BSA 2023, that provided for presumption regarding a child's paternity if born during subsistence of marriage or within 280 days of its dissolution.

The Court held that the legislature never contemplated a scenario where a female might also deny a child to be hers. In such a situation, where there was no legislative presumption regarding maternity, it was held that maternity could be conclusively determined through DNA testing.

Pain & Suffering Not Measurable: Rajasthan High Court Enhances MACT Award For Mental Agony Citing Prolonged Treatment, Permanent Disability

Title: Dekaran Singh v Pyare Lal & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 59

The Rajasthan High Court has enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to a claimant under the head of mental agony from Rs. 13,000 to Rs. 50,000 taking into account the duration for which the petitioner had to be hospitalized followed by his 6 months leave from work.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that pain and suffering qualified as non-pecuniary loss, as these were not capable of being arithmetically calculated. Hence, when the compensation had to be awarded under the head of pain and sufferings, special circumstances of the claimant had to be taken into account like his/her age, unusual deprivation, etc.

“A person not only suffers injuries on account of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account of the accident throughout his life and a feeling is developed that he is no more a normal man and cannot enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can. While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also for loss of amenities of life, features like his age, marital status and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life have to be reckoned.”

Financial Constraints Of State Road Transport Corporation No Defence To Deny Lawful Dues Of Workman: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Mohan Singh v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 60

While hearing the petition moved by a retired employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation aggrieved due to non-payment of dues against weekly rest for almost 13 years, Rajasthan High Court observed that any rightful claim of workman could not be denied on the ground that RSRTC did not have sufficient funds.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain held that RSRTC might be facing financial difficulties due to mismanagement or poor management, however that had nothing to do with the right and claim of any workman.

“The drivers, conductors, support and mechanical staff are the backbone of RSRTC, responsible for maintaining public transport system, therefore, merely because roadways is facing a financial difficulty, it may (not) avoid to comply settlement award arrived in present case.”

BDS Degree Not Equivalent To 'Degree In Medicine' For Food Safety Officer Post: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Arvind Kumar Gupta v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 61

The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition filed by an aspirant for the post of Food Safety Officer, opining that the issue regarding equivalence of a bachelor's degree in Dental Surgery (BDS) to a degree in Medicine was already answered in negative by an expert committee, and hence, there was no scope of interference by the Court in the same.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma further held that the Court anyways did not have the liberty to interfere with the eligibility criteria for a post, in a manner that resulted in revising or modifying the criteria prescribed by the State as the recruiting authority.

Legal Heirs Succeed As Joint Tenants, Not Co-Tenants: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Eviction Decree

Title: Smt. Chaya Sethi & Ors. v Jitendra Bohra & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 62

While dismissing a petition moved by successors of a co-tenant challenging execution of an eviction decree, the Rajasthan High Court held that upon death of the original tenant, legal heirs did not acquire separate or independent tenancy rights. Rather, they stepped into the shoes of the deceased tenant, and succeeded the tenancy as joint tenants.

The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta further observed that unlike co-tenants, joint tenants had collective rights, representing single tenancy. And in such tenancies, service of notice or eviction proceedings against one joint tenant was sufficient to bind all joint tenant, without the need for individual impleadment of all such joint tenants in the proceedings.

Bar On Second Revision Petition Can't Be Circumvented By Clever Drafting: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses NI Act Plea

Title: Jai Kishan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 63

The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that a second revision petition is not maintainable and mere clever drafting or change in nomenclature at the time of filing can't circumvent the law.

Justice Farjand Ali remarked, "The transformation in procedural attire cannot alter the juridical character of the proceedings...The true nature of a proceeding is to be determined by the essence of the relief claimed and not by the nomenclatural device adopted by the litigant."

The Court stated that even though the nomenclature used for filing the proceedings was not that of criminal revision, in essence, the petition sought reconsideration of the very order which had already been subjected to revisional scrutiny by the additional sessions judge. There was no change in the substance.

'Right To Life Includes Safe Highways': Rajasthan High Court Orders Removal Of All Encroachments Including Religious Ones Within 2 Months

Title: Himmat Singh Gehlot v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 64

While taking judicial notice of large-scale encroachments, including religious structures, within the Right of Way (ROW) of National Highway across Rajasthan, the High Court has directed their removal or suitable relocation within a period of 2 months.

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that the lack of inter-department coordination while granting of permission, licenses and utility connections in isolation, without reference to Highway Control lines, building lines, road land boundaries etc, have resulted in creation of hazardous access points.

“…State-wide pattern of illegal occupation of Highway land within the ROW, posing a direct threat to human life and offending the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Rajasthan High Court Flags Plight Of First-Gen Lawyers, Orders Creation Of Junior Advocates Welfare Fund For Purchasing Law Books

Title: Smt. Meena Devi & Ors. v Rahul Haldiya & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 65

The Rajasthan High Court recently flagged the difficulties faced by young, first generation advocates and directed creation of a Junior Advocates Welfare Fund to facilitate purchase of law books by junior advocates of less than 28 years of age, having a practice of 1-5 years.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the first generation young lawyers had no support to establish their practice, and no resources to purchase the necessary law books. It was stated that many such advocates were dependent on their families even after starting their practice, and some even leave the profession due to financial pressure.

The Court opined that welfare schemes were important for such advocates, like health support, accident help, and emergency funds that could protect them during difficult times.

Transfer To Open Air Camp Can't Be Denied Solely Citing Gravity Of Offence: Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Rape Convict

Title: Mahaveer v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 66

While allowing the application of a rape convict to be shifted open air camp, Rajasthan High Court held that even though such transfer was not a matter of right, it could not be denied by applying a straight jacket formula of solely relying on the nature of offence, without considering other relevant factors.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the embargo created under the Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (“Rules”) was not absolute or did not impose a blanket prohibition. Rather, it vested discretion with the competent authorities.

Rajasthan High Court Pulls Up Medical Dept For 'Deliberate Non-Compliance' Of Court Orders; Directs Principal Secy To Appear

Title: M.r. College of Physiotherapy

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 67

While opining the conduct of the department to be reflective of “deliberate non-compliance” and “absolute disregard and disrespect”, towards the Court's orders, Rajasthan High Court directed the Principle Secretary, Medical and Health, to be present before the Court, physically or via video conferencing, and file a personal affidavit regarding the delay in compliance.

The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit was hearing a petition filed by a college aggrieved from inaction on part of the State towards the petitioner's application for NOC for establishment of a Physiotherapy institution.

The Court observed, “This is not a standalone instance. In several other matters, where similar directions were issued by this Court to place on record inspection reports of institutions, respondent Department, has failed to comply with the same, which indicates flaws, non-transparency, and lack of accountability on the part of Respondent Department.”.

Rajasthan HC Refuses Late Entry Of Newly Approved Nursing Colleges Into 2025–26 Counselling; Says Academic Schedule Can't Be Reopened

Title: Aryaman Nursing College v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 68

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petitions filed by newly established nursing colleges, seeking participation in the counselling process for 2025-26 academic session, in light of the fact that the requisite NOC and statutory recognition were obtained by such colleges after the counselling process was concluded and the academic session had progressed substantially.

The bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati held that allowing extension of timelines, or announcing another round of counselling, would disturb the academic schedule and compromise educational standards. It was opined that approvals only allowed the institutions to get established without creating any right to student allotment once the counselling was over.

At the same time, in the interest of orderly administration, the Court issued prospective directions to the effect that for the next academic session, applications of bona-fide institutions seeking NOC for participation in counselling process, shall be considered atleast 45 days prior to commencement of first round of counselling.

Peaceful Protests Don't Attract Recovery Of Police Deployment Costs Unless Democratic Limits Are Exceeded: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 69

The Rajasthan High Court has held that in cases where the permissible democratic limits to peaceful protests are crossed by the protestors, resulting in acts like climbing on the overhead tanks, police has the right to recover additional expenses from such protestors, incurred for maintaining law and order.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a matter concerning the charges related to deployment of additional police force when one of the petitioners climbed an overhead water tank during the protest. It observed,

“peaceful agitation or protest against any perceived civil wrong or against a decision of the Government, if carried out in a democratic and lawful manner and subject to reasonable restraints, forms an integral part of a democratic set up, and ordinarily no recovery of expenses should be fastened upon the protestors for such lawful and peaceful demonstration. At the same time, any act exceeding the permissible democratic limits, including the act of climbing upon an overhead tank with an element of threat to public order or safety, may legitimately invite recovery of expenses incurred for maintaining law and order.”

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Eviction Of 40-Year-Old Shop Near Temple, Says Devotees Facing Inconvenience In Smooth Movement

Title: Fateh Mohammad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 70

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition challenging notice sent by Shri Devasthan Board, maintaining Shri Sarneshwar Mahadev Temple, to the petitioner to evict him from his 40 year-old shop structure in the close vicinity of the temple, observing that the petitioner was an encroacher.

The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur held that the Board was well within its right to initiate proceedings against the petition for removal of encroachment from the temple property for the benefit of the devotees, who otherwise face inconvenience.

Salary Details Of Husband Is 'Personal Information': Rajasthan High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Wife's RTI Plea

Title: Smt. Kanta Kumawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 71

Rajasthan High Court upheld the State's order to deny wife's RTI application seeking details of salary paid to the husband who was employed with the concerned department, opining that information relating to performance of an employee or officer in an organization fell within “personal information”.

The petitioner had filed an RTI application with the concerned department seeking copies of pay slips/details of salary paid to her husband who was an employee of the department, for a particular time period.

Prisoner Can't Be Transferred 800–1000 Km Away Without Reason, Causing Hardship To Family: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Sunil v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 72

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the transfer of an undertrial from one jail to another which was 800-1000 Kms away from his residential town, opining that such transfer imposed an unreasonable and onerous burden on his family members by compelling them to travel such a long distance to meet him.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that compelling the petitioner's family to travel such a distance, without assigning any reason for such transfer, was wholly impracticable and unjust. Hence, the order was held to be unsustainable in law.

Writ Against Private Institute Over Termination Not Maintainable In Absence Of Public Law Element: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Atal Khandelwal v Institute of Health Management Research

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 73

The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a writ petition filed against Indian Institute of Health Management Research, filed by its employee against his termination order, opining that the challenged order arose out of a service relationship between the parties, which is private in nature. Since there was no public law element, a writ petition is not maintainable.

The bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar referred to certain Supreme Court judgments, that held that while a body may be discharging public duty, and be subject to judicial review by courts, its employees did not have right to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, since the matter related to service which was not governed or controlled by statutory provisions.

Rajasthan HC Enhances Compensation To ₹78 Lakh In MBBS Final-Year Student's Accidental Death, Applies Notional Income of ₹50K Per Month

Title: Smt. Imrawati Devi & Ors. v Ramveer & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 74

The Rajasthan High Court has enhanced the compensation from around Rs. 50 Lakhs to Rs. 78 Lakhs in favour of the family of a 23-year old final year MBBS student who passed away in an accident in the year 2015.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to the Supreme Court case of Bishnupriya Panda v. Basanti Manjari Mohanty & Anr. that dealt with an identical factual situation, and considered the notional income of the deceased, coupled with the future prospects, to be Rs. 50,000 per month.

Husband Abandoning Wife & Defaulting In Paying Maintenance Forfeits Right To Contest Dissolution Of Marriage: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Smt. Khushboo v Manohar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 75

While allowing dissolution of marriage, Rajasthan High Court held that the husband's conduct of total abandonment of legal proceedings, deliberate violations of judicial directions, and persistent non-payment of court-ordered maintenance, amounted to sustained mental cruelty, making it impossible for the wife to reasonably be expected to live with the husband.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit observed that deliberate and intentional abandonment by the husband of both his matrimonial obligations as well as legal obligations amounted to a forfeiture of his right to contest the matter.

Rajasthan High Court Slams State For Sitting Over College NOC Despite Favourable Inspection, Affirms 'Right To Timely Service'

Title: Health and Education Care Society v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 76

While rapping the State for “gross inaction” in issuing NOC even after 8 months of inspection, Rajasthan High Court held that such lapse in processing a routine clearance revealed a callous disregard for public interest and slackness in discharge of public duties.

Expressing displeasure and surprise over such inaction, the bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that such lapses compelled entities to approach courts for writ of mandamus, thereby perpetuating a vicious cycle of litigation, extracting multiple round of compliance from institutions while the executive remained unreactive.

“The authorities' high-handedness in sitting over NOC applications despite favourable inspection report, as exemplified in the present case, not only undermines the rule of law but transforms this Court into an unwilling de facto regulator of the process of grant of NOC.”

Speculative Fear Of Village Rivalry No Ground To Deny Parole, Law & Order Manageable Through Conditions: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Govaram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 77

The Rajasthan High Court has held that possibility of inter-se tensions between the parties or a perceived threat could not, by itself, be a determinative factor for denying parole, especially when the applicant's conduct in jail was reported to be satisfactory.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that maintenance of law and order is a continuous obligation of the State and such concerns could be addressed by imposing suitable conditions on the applicant during the parole period.

Dying Declaration Lacking Medical Certification Unsafe For Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Acquits Man Booked For Setting Wife Ablaze

Title: Soma v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 78

The Rajasthan High Court has acquitted a man convicted for his wife's murder by setting her on fire, in light of the fact that there was no medical endorsement on the dying declaration certifying that the deceased was conscious, oriented and in a mentally fit state to make a statement.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma further observed that no records of pulse rate, blood pressure or extent of burns, at the relevant time, was produced, neither the declaration was recorded or certified by any executive or judicial magistrate despite their offices being located just 500 feet away.

“…a dying declaration, if found to be voluntary, truthful and recorded in a fit state of mind, can form the sole basis of conviction. However, the converse is equally true: where the dying declaration is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, lacks procedural safeguards and is not free from doubt, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance upon it.”

'1000s Of Appeals Pending For 20-30 Yrs': Rajasthan High Court Says Sentence Suspension Must Be Considered Where Early Hearing Is Unlikely

Title: Roop Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 79

Rajasthan High Court has said that appellate court's discretion to grant suspension of sentence must be exercised with greater circumspection in cases where it is satisfied that the criminal appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, for the reason that if the appeal ultimately succeeds the imprisonment undergone can't be reversed.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that in the High Court thousands of criminal appeals remained pending for 20-30 years, with no likelihood of early hearing. It said

"In the High Court, thousands of criminal appeals have remained pending for the last 20–30 years, including jail appeals, where even the likelihood of early hearing does not appear forthcoming. In such matters, instead of taking an irreversible risk, the court must proceed on the safer side by placing paramount importance on human dignity and personal liberty".

March 2026

Rajasthan High Court Deprecates Litigants Pursuing Two Remedies Simultaneously, Says 'Hedging Bets' Impermissible

Title: Charan Singh Khangarot v Raghunath Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 80

While rejecting a revision petition, the Rajasthan High Court held that an aggrieved party cannot be allowed to avail two parallel remedies at the same time against the same order or judgment passed against them as such a conduct amounts to abuse of judicial process.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that once a party chose a remedy, s/he was bound by it and could not switch over to another if they fail to get any relief in the first remedy.

“By availing two parallel remedies, the petitioner intends to sail in two boats and the same cannot be permitted. One cannot pursue two parallel remedies against the self same judgment at the same time, as this will be deemed to be an abuse of the process of law and Court. Though multiple remedies might technically exist and selecting one remedy often bars the initiation of another remedy simultaneously. Such practice cannot be appreciated, rather it is liable to be deprecated. Once a party chooses to pursue one remedy (eg. appeal), he/she is bound by it and cannot switch over to another if he/she fails to get any relief in the first remedy. Essentially a litigant must choose his/her path and he/she cannot be allowed to “hedge his bets” by way of pursuing two parallel remedies simultaneously for espousing the same cause," the Court said.

Denying Doctor Permission To Pursue Higher Studies Solely Due To 'Administrative Inconvenience' Not Sustainable: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dr. Vimla Kumawat v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 81

The Rajasthan High Court has granted interim relief to a Medical Officer who was selected for a Senior Residency Course but was not relieved from service by the State, observing that denial of permission to pursue higher studies merely on account of administrative inconvenience cannot be sustained.

Justice Nupur Bhati directed the State authorities to relieve the petitioner immediately so that she could join the Senior Residency Course before the last date of admission.

The Court observed that denying permission to pursue higher studies or career advancement solely on the ground of administrative inconvenience or temporary shortage of doctors, without balancing the constitutional rights of the petitioner and the long-term public interest, would not be justified.

Rajasthan High Court Flags 'Near-Zero' Cut-Off; Says State Must Ensure Minimum Standards Even For Reserved Categories

Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 82

The Rajasthan High Court expressed shock and raised concern about standard in public employment while hearing a petition by a candidate for Class-IV teachers. He was aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature since he received negative marks in the qualifying exam, when no minimum qualifying marks were prescribed by the State.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that as the appointing authority, the State was expected to ensure minimum standards in recruitment even for reserved category so that selected candidates were capable of performing basic duties in a satisfactory manner.

Minor Girl Apprehends Torture, Alleges Father's Involvement In Illegal Activities; Rajasthan High Court Allows Her To Stay In Children's Home

Title: Rameshwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 83

The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a minor daughter to live at a Children's Home till she attains majority, based on her unwillingness to return to her parental home due to her father's alleged involvement in some illegal activities, and apprehension of being subjected to torture by her parents.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the father, alleging that his minor daughter was illegally detained by the respondent.

State Can Order Reassessment Of Disability Certificates Of Employees Appointed Under PwD Quota To Prevent Fraudulent Claims: Rajasthan HC

Title: Ramprakash Kahrlwa v the Director, Elementary Education & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 84

The Rajasthan High Court rejects a bunch of petitions, challenging the State's order of compulsory reassessment of benchmark disabilities of persons who, during the last 5 years or more, were employed under the PwD category, opining that it was the State's duty to ensure that reservation policies were implemented in a legal and transparent manner, ensuring equality and fairness.

“A humane and inclusive approach, as indicated hereinabove, has to be adopted, but at the same time fraudulent acts must be prevented at all costs so as to implement the law in true spirit. The system is inclusive, and inclusivity can be ensured only when policies are implemented in letter and spirit, with the aim of extending benefits to the last person in the queue.”

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain was hearing the challenge against the administrative order issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, dated August 28, 2025, after certain irregularities were found during assessment of employees appointed against the posts reserved for PwD.

Rajasthan High Court Grants 40-Day Interim Bail To Undertrial To Assist Father Undergoing Urgent Surgery

Title: Vikram Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 85

While allowing interim bail of an under-trial accused, Rajasthan High Court observed that serious illness of a parent where immediate surgical intervention was medically advised, was recognized as a valid humanitarian ground for temporary release, subject to adequate safeguards.

Taking note of the multiplicity of FIRs against the petitioner and allege series of transactions, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali stated that the Court was mindful of the nature and multiplicity of cases, however balance between individual liberty under Article 21 and the interest of prosecution case could be maintained by imposing strict safeguards.

Son's Right To Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Defeated By Parents' Divorce Or Appointment Of Father's Second Wife: Rajasthan HC

Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Ashish Saxena & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 86

While granting the relief of compassionate appointment to the respondent, Rajasthan High Court held that denial of such appointment merely on the ground that after his parents divorce the respondent was not residing with the deceased employee and thus was not dependent on him, was clearly untenable.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, and Justice Baljinder Sandhu, further rejected the State's argument of the appointment already being given to the deceased's second wife.

It was observed that the appointment to the second wife was granted after the respondent had applied for the compassionate appointment, and that too under the widow quota. Such appointment could not evade the independent right of the respondent to claim appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996.

Father's Rape Of Minor Daughter Is A Betrayal Of Sacred Relationship: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment

Title: B v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 87

While upholding life imprisonment of a father, convicted of repeatedly raping his minor daughter, Rajasthan High Court held that such offence stuck not only at the individual victim but also at the foundation values of familial trust and society morality, and amounted to gross violation of constitutional guarantee of dignity and personal liberty.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma opined that it was extremely difficult for a 14-year old to gather courage to lodge a complaint against her father upon whom she was dependent for shelter and survival. Hence, the delay in reporting and initial non-disclosure of the offence was natural and fully explained, that did not weaken the prosecution case.

“Sexual offences, particularly those committed against children, inflict injuries that extend far beyond the immediacy of the physical act. The harm is not confined to bodily violation; it penetrates deeply into the psychological and emotional fabric of the victim…When such an offence is perpetrated by the father—the person whom law and nature alike recognize as the child's guardian and protector—the crime assumes an aggravated and abhorrent dimension. It ceases to be a mere infraction of penal provisions and becomes a profound betrayal of the most sacred and foundational human relationship.”

Misleading Social Media Posts Violate Right To Life: Rajasthan HC Orders Removal Of Facebook Post About Minor, Flags Privacy Violation

Title: Aaradhya Verma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 88

Rajasthan High Court held that any misleading material on Facebook or social media which was found to be false, malicious and intended at damaging the reputation or invading privacy of an individual, was a violation of that individual's right to fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition filed by a minor, living with her mother at her maternal house, after her father's death, alleging posting of misleading post on Facebook by her grandparents claiming her to be missing and announcing an award of Rs. 1 lakh for anyone who traced her.

Employees Selected In Same Recruitment Process Can't Be Given Different Pay Based On Joining Date: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Shrutika Chauhan & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 89

The Rajasthan High Court has held that candidates who have been selected, appointed and joined their services in the same recruitment process cannot be discriminated in the matter of pay fixation, merely on the basis of joining dates.

The bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma was hearing petitions filed by school lecturers alleging that the State was discriminating in the pay scale of employees recruited in the same recruitment process on the ground that some had joined before the cut-off date and others joined later to that cut-off date.

Freezing Bank Account Without Prima Facie Link To Offence Violates Right To Life, Trade: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vinit Kumar Adiwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 90

Rajasthan High Court held that freezing of a citizen's account without any cogent reason or establishing even a prima facie nexus of such account with the offence, amounted to grave and unwarranted intrusion that violated fundamental rights under Article 21 and 19 (1) (g).

The bench of observed that the statutory power of investigating agencies to request the bank to freeze the account, could not be exercised perpetually without intimating the account holder about the reason for such freezing as well as the extent for which it has been frozen.

“The power to interdict the operation of a bank account is an exceptional one, to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and strictly in accordance with law, and only upon recording reasons demonstrating a live and proximate link between the account and the alleged criminal activity. Any freezing order passed dehors such safeguards betrays a colourable exercise of power, is manifestly arbitrary, and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”

Rajasthan High Court Drops Suo Motu Contempt Against Registry Officials Over Non-Listing Of Cases

Title: Suo Moto v Akshay Sharma & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 91

The Rajasthan High Court has dropped the suo moto contempt proceedings initiated against Registry officials over grievances expressed by certain advocates alleging non-listing of matters even after Court fixing the next dates.

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah took note of a Supreme Court decision that held that filing of contempt petition merely for not listing of matter was an attempt to “browbeat the Registry”, and such attempt was highly deprecated.

Minor Below Minimum Age Prescribed For Applying At Time Of Employee's Death Can't Seek Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vikram Nath v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 92

The Rajasthan High Court has held that even though compassionate appointments are made to mitigate the hardship suffered by the family of the deceased employee, the Government could not be compelled to wait indefinitely until the child of the deceased, who was minor at the time of death, attains majority for submitting the application for employment.

The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur dismissed the petition filed by a government employee's son against the rejection of his application for compassionate appointment since he was below the age of eligibility for application.

The Court observed that, "the action of the respondent in rejecting the petitioner's application seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that, at the time of his father's death, he did not meet the minimum age criteria prescribed for submitting the application, and therefore his claim for appointment could not be kept alive until he attained majority, cannot be faulted...the Government/Jdvvnl cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely until a minor child attains majority for submitting application for employment."

Rajasthan High Court Directs Cooperative Bank To Pay PMFBY Insurance To Farmers, Says They Cannot Suffer Due To Data Entry Error

Title: Purna Ram v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 93

Rajasthan High Court directed the Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank (“Bank”) to disburse the insurance money to farmers, opining that the farmers could not be denied benefits under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna (PMFBY) owing to error committed by the cooperative societies in filling the data on the National Crop Insurance Portal (“NCIP”).

The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur was hearing a bunch of petition filed by a number of farmers who had suffered losses due to crop failure in the year 2020, but still had not received the insurance claim under the PMFBY. On the contrary, the Bank had filed a petition seeking quashing of order by the High Level Committee that ordered it to pay to the farmers.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Case Against JDA Officer Accused Of Illegal Demolition, Cites Lack Of Sanction

Title: Rajeev Dutta v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 94

The Rajasthan High Court set aside proceedings against the Enforcement Officer, Jaipur Development Authority (“EO, JDA”) in a case of alleged unlawful entry and demolition of entry gate, in absence of prior sanction under Section 197, CrPC and restriction under Section 78 of the JDA Act.

The bench of Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur was hearing a petition challenging the orders of the trial court that took cognizance against the petitioner pursuant to the complaint lodged by the respondent.

Furthermore, the Court made a reference to case of JDA and Anr. v the Appellate Tribunal and Ors. in relation to the same matter, and highlighted that it was observed by the Court that the proposal regarding removal of encroachment was approved by the Director Law and Commissioner, JDA. Hence, EO was acting pursuant to such direction.

“It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the petitioner initiated and carried out the said action pursuant to statutory powers vested in him and under the directions of the Commissioner, which is also evident from the First Information Report itself…The allegations concerning removal of encroachment and the consequential exercise of authority arise directly out of the statutory duties assigned to the petitioner. Even assuming procedural irregularities or excesses, the act cannot be said to be wholly dehors the discharge of official duty.”

Victim's Appeal Against Grant Of Probation To Convict Not Maintainable Under S.372 CrPC: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Sumitra v Ashish

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 95

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a victim's statutory right to appeal against grant of probation to the convict is not maintainable under Section 372 CrPC.

In doing so the court observed that a victim's appeal challenging the convict's probation was jurisdictionally wrong as its foundation laid in the victim's dissatisfaction with the sentence imposed.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that allowing of such appeal by the trial court amounted to unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction and serious mis-appreciation of statutory limits of appellate jurisdiction that resulted in manifest prejudice to the accused.

"The right of appeal in criminal matters is entirely statutory and must be traced to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. confers a limited right upon a victim to prefer an appeal only against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or imposition of inadequate compensation. A case where the accused stands convicted and is granted the benefit of probation does not fall within the ambit of any of these categories. An order granting probation is a part of the sentencing process following conviction and cannot be equated with an acquittal or a conviction for a lesser offence. The proviso does not confer upon a private complainant a general right to seek enhancement of sentence. Such power vests exclusively in the State under Section 377 Cr.P.C".

Person Convicted For Gang Rape Of Minor Not Absolutely Barred From Open Air Camp; Rule Allows Exceptions: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vijayraj v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 96

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a person convicted for gang-rape of a minor though ineligible to be shifted to open air camp, can be considered for the relief in case of exceptional circumstances.

The division bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sandeep Shah noted that Rule 3(d) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 prescribes classes of prisoners who shall "ordinarily" be not eligible for being sent to Open Camp.

In view of use of the word "ordinarily", the Court held that the ineligibility was not absolute, and applicant had to prove exceptional circumstances for making themselves eligible for open air camp.

Banks Must Show Empathy Toward Employees With Medical Ailments; Can't Rigidly Follow Transfer Circulars: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Neeraj Sharma v State Bank of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 97

While setting aside transfer of a SBI employee from Jaipur to Hyderabad who was suffering from a medical ailment that resulted in damage to his body, the Rajasthan High Court has held that banks must take a pragmatic approach and show empathy towards their employees.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma opined that for postings and transfers, the administrative side need to take into account the medical condition of the employee, especially in case where a person was in service for a while, and was suffering from medical ailments that resulted in damage to his body.

Relative's Mere Presence In Matrimonial Home Or Passive Familial Association Can't Attract S.498A IPC: Rajasthan High Court

Title: RS & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 98

While setting aside summons under Section 498-A IPC against some family members of a married man, the Rajasthan High Court has held that criminal liability could not be inferred merely on the basis of a relative's presence in the matrimonial house in absence of any precise attribution of role to such family members in the allegations of cruelty.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that criminality attaches to intentional conduct and not to passive familial association. In offences under Section 498-A IPC, blanket allegations against every relative of the husband, without delineation of independent conduct, did not satisfy the threshold required for criminal prosecution.

The Court also considered that in ten years of marriage, there were no past instances of complaint or documented grievance of the deceased.

Denying Authenticated Clone Copies Of Electronic Evidence To Accused Violates Right To Fair Trial Under Article 21: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Kishan Agarwal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 99

While allowing petitioner's application of getting cloned copy of the electronic evidence used by prosecution in a corruption case, Rajasthan High Court opined that furnishing of unrecognized copies or denial of authenticated copies not only violated petitioner's right to fair trial under Article 21 but also hampered his/he right to effectively invoke remedy of discharge.

The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu held that electronic evidence possessed inherent forensic attributes required for examining their integrity and authenticity, and the cloned copies with hash value of such evidence assumed significance since it was necessary to authenticate the chain of electronic record.

'Concealed Personal Interest': Rajasthan High Court Bars Litigant From Filing PILs In Future, Mulls Imposing ₹25 Lakh Costs

Title: Himmat Singh Gehlot v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 100

The Rajasthan High Court has come down heavily upon a petitioner who had filed a PIL over Highway weigh-bridges, after finding he had personal interest in the matter.

A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal has now not only barred the petitioner from filing any PIL in future but has also issued him a notice, asking to show cause why proceedings shall not be initiated against him for misusing the process, and why an exemplary cost of Rs. 25 lakhs should not be imposed on him.

The Court made a reference to Rule 385-F of the Rules of High Court of Rajasthan and highlighted that sub rule (1), (6) and (7) prescribed certain mandatory disclosures that PIL must accompany so that the Court could examine the bona fides, credibility and locus.

“As an upshot, we are compelled to observe that the petitioner appears to have a clear conflict of personal interest… present proceedings may not be entirely divorced from private or collateral considerations and that the cause of public interest has been invoked as a facade to pursue a matter in which the petitioner has a discernible personal stake.”

Vague Medical Opinions In Criminal Cases Undermine Fair Trial: Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Formulate Medico-Legal Guidelines

Title: Gautam v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 101

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State Chief Secretary to issue directions for preparation and implementation of comprehensive and uniform medico-legal guidelines to be followed by all the government medical officers, while furnishing medical opinions in criminal cases for ensuring their clarity, legibility, completeness, and unambiguity.

The bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali further directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, to direct the Police Departments to strictly follow the prescribed guidelines, and further direct the police officials to ensure that all medical opinions obtained by them were specific and classified each injury as dangerous or sufficient to cause death.

“It is the duty of the Court to ensure that evidence placed before it is not only formally admissible but substantively reliable, especially where expert opinion is central in determining criminal liability…The Court, therefore, considers it imperative that uniform standards of medico-legal reporting be introduced, alongside mechanisms to ensure accountability among medical officers responsible for issuing such reports.”

Accused Can Withdraw Consent For Narco Analysis Before Or During The Test: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Subhash Saini v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 102

The Rajasthan High Court has held that an accused has the right to withdraw consent right before or while undergoing the Narco analysis test, even though such consent was given earlier by him/her based on which the conduct of such test was allowed by the Magistrate.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that consent once given could not be treated as irrevocable and conduct of such test pursuant to withdrawal of consent shall amount to violation of the accused's right to life and personal liberty as well as right to remain silent, under Articles 21 and 20(3) respectively.

"A Narco Analysis Test cannot be conducted on a suspected person like that on the petitioner against his wish and will, i.e., against his consent. Such suspect has the full right to deny his consent either given before or during the course of recording. Right against self-incrimination guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India protects the suspected accused from being compelled to provide testimonial evidence against himself. Any involuntary Narco Test breaches this protection by forcing the individual to speak in a drug-induced state, thereby suppressing his free will."

Victim And Convict Belonging To Same Village Not By Itself Ground To Deny Parole: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Narayan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 103

The Rajasthan High Court has held that denying the benefit of parole to a convict merely because he lives in the same village and close proximity to that of the victim and thus presented potential threat, was based on conjectures, and frustrated the objective of parole.

The division bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that when a convict returned home and reconnected with his family, it generated a sense of introspection and responsibility within him to rebuild his life and restore his dignity, which acted as a powerful incentive for self-correction.

After 37 Years, Rajasthan High Court Refuses Retrial Despite Invalid Compromise Of Criminal Case, Quashes Proceedings

Title: State of Rajasthan v Moola Ram

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 104

The Rajasthan High Court recently upheld the acquittal of a man by the trial court which was based on a compromise agreement, even though the agreement was invalid.

In doing so the court refused to order retrial, noting that remanding the matter for a fresh trial after a lapse of 37 years would not secure the ends of justice.

Despite the acquittal not being in strict consonance with the law, the Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the proceedings against the accused considering that the incident dated back to 1989.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a criminal appeal by the State against order of the Magistrate, passed in 1990, wherein based on a compromise, the accused was acquitted.

“Casual And Lackadaisical”: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside One-Line Order Rejecting Prisoner's Plea For Transfer To Open Air Camp

Title: Nirmal Dudani v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 105

While setting aside an unreasoned order rejecting petitioner's application to be transferred to Open Air Camp, Rajasthan High Court held that mere existence of power to reject such request did not justify mechanical exercise in the absence of any compelling reasons recorded in writing.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the order reflected a “casual and lackadaisical” approach in exercise of this statutory discretion and fell short of minimum standards of administrative fairness expected of a statutory authority.

“The authority empowered to consider applications for transfer to Open Air Camps is required to undertake a conscientious evaluation of several relevant factors, including the prisoner's conduct within the prison precincts, the nature of the offence, the eligibility parameters prescribed under the governing rules and the broader objectives of the Open Air Camp scheme, which is fundamentally rehabilitative in character. The decision-making process must therefore reflect a judicious balance between institutional discipline and the reformative philosophy underlying the penal system.”

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Plea Challenging RJS Civil Judge 2024 Prelims Answer Key

Title: Khushbu Choudhary v Rajasthan High Court

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 106

While dismissing the petition seeking quashing of answer key of the Rajasthan Judicial Services Examination 2024 and publication of revised results, Rajasthan High Court held that in matters of academic evaluation or determination of correct answers in a competitive examination, Court was not an appellate authority over decision of the Expert Committee.

“The Committee consists of persons possessing specialized knowledge in the relevant field, and their academic opinion deserves due deference.”

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal further observed that the Court must balance the equities. Since the successful candidates were not parties to the case, passing any order in their absence that might adversely affect them would amount to travesty of justice, without yielding any tangible benefit to the petitioner.

Settlement Of Landlord's One Son Doesn't Extinguish Bonafide Need Of Other: Rajasthan High Court Restores Tenant's Eviction

Title: Pratap Singh Hada v Rajkumar Jhamb

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 107

While upholding the eviction of a tenant, the Rajasthan High Court has held that when the eviction was sought based on bonafide need of two family members of the landlord, fulfilment of such need for one family member by some other means did not automatically extinguish the need of the other.

The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Appellant Rent Tribunal that had quashed the order of the Rent Tribunal and rejected the eviction application submitted by the petitioner.

“The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has nowhere recorded a finding that both the sons were carrying on the business of an ice-cream parlor…Once it is found that only one son is carrying on business in the shop which became available during the pendency of the suit, the requirement of the other son could not have been said to have been satisfied.”

11 Years, No Chargesheet 'Shocking': Rajasthan HC Directs Separation Of Police Investigation Wing From Law & Order To Ensure Speedy Probes

Title: Jitendra Meena v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 108

While expressing shock and pain over a matter wherein no charge sheet was filed even after 11 years of FIR, Rajasthan High Court observed that it was felt on various occasions that investigation in several cases remained pending for a long period since the same investigating officer was assigned the duties of maintaining law and order.

While referring to a Supreme Court case in which directions were issued to Central and State Government for framing legislation for separation of the investigation police wing from that of maintaining law and order, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed State heads of various departments to form appropriate policy for such separation, in the interim.

Constable In Coma Since 5 Yrs After On-Duty Accident, Rajasthan High Court Orders Release Of Salary

Title: Sharda Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 109

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to a woman whose constable-husband has been in coma since 2021 following an on-duty accident, with his salary being withheld by the State.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma directed the State to grant Special Disability Leave to the husband, release outstanding salary, and continue payment of regular salary.

“…both the conditions which are required for sanctioning Special Disability Leave under Rule 99 of RSR are fulfilled in this case. Merely, the suspicions created by other officers on account of not lodging an FIR or there were discrepancies in Rojnamcha would not disentitle husband of the petitioner from the legitimate benefits…”

Rajasthan High Court Directs Re-Evaluation Of Victims' Injuries After Accused Alleges Gross Exaggeration, Falsification Of Medical Report

Title: Ajeet Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 110

The Rajasthan High Court recently directed medical re-evaluation of two persons who were allegedly injured by a man, after he claimed that the victims' injuries have been "grossly exaggerated" in order to falsely elevate the severity of offences alleged against him.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that allegations made by the petitioner–accused of causing injuries to victims–who had questioned the veracity of the medical evidence could not be brushed aside lightly. It was held that interests of justice did not lie solely in prosecution but also in the overarching pursuit of truth.

“Firstly, it provides an opportunity to validate the existing medico-legal reports, thereby ensuring that the evidence presented is not tainted by manipulation. Secondly, if the medical board identifies discrepancies or inconsistencies in the earlier reports, it will be imperative to correct these findings, as the integrity of the case depends heavily on the authenticity of the medical evidence.”

Allegations Of Police Shielding Gangster Raise 'Alarming Systemic Failure': Rajasthan High Court Seeks DGP's Intervention

Title: Altaf Bano & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 111

While terming it a “systemic failure”, Rajasthan High Court expressed concern over the allegations of a gangster operating under the instructions of a Police officer and threatening the Petitioner who had lodged a complaint against the cop for abuse of official authority by detaining and assaulting her and her family.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that when the protector became the destructor, people's confidence in the system shattered, and there was a risk of complete collapse of the institutional framework meant to uphold law.

“…State cannot remain a mute spectator when credible threats to life are brought to its notice.”

Compassionate Appointment Can't Be Denied On Ground Of Delay When Initial Application Was Timely: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vibhorgolash v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 112

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside rejection of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the grounds of the second application being time barred, opining that since no negative or positive order was passed by the State on the previous application by the petitioner that was filed within the time frame, rejection of second application was contrary to the settled norms.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that even though compassionate appointment could not be claimed as a right but when a public authority failed to discharge its duties in affair and transparent manner, the Court had no other option but to allow the petition.

Rajasthan High Court Cracks Down On Unregulated Jawai Tourism; Bans Night Safaris, Use Of Drones To Protect Leopard Habitat

Title: Apoorva Agrawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 113

While hearing a PIL claiming unregulated tourism in Jawai region of Pali that was causing ecological stress and disturbance to wildlife particularly Indian leopards, Rajasthan High Court in an interim order prohibited safari activities beyond 6 am to 7 pm.

In doing so the court banned night safari in the Jawai region as well as restrained use of drones which can disturb the animals

At the outset while referring to Article 48A of the Constitution pertaining to State's "endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country", a division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that despite its ecological uniqueness and increasing global recognition, Jawai remained outside the protective framework of wildlife sanctuary or national park.

Belonging To Scheduled Tribe Doesn't Bar Divorce Under Hindu Marriage Act Without Established Custom: Rajasthan High Court

Title: X v Y

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 114

The Rajasthan High Court upheld an order dismissing a wife's Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application seeking rejection of her husband's divorce plea filed under Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), on the ground that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe and thus the HMA was not applicable.

The division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that there was no mention of any prevailing custom of the Community for solemnization of marriage which was different from the ceremonies performed by Hindus.

Further, the Court highlighted that it was not pleaded that the ceremonies followed by Hindus as per rites envisaged under HMA was not followed in the Community.

'WhatsApp Notice Not Valid For Arrest U/S 41A CrPC': Rajasthan HC Convicts Cop For Contempt Over Violation Of Arnesh Kumar Guidelines

Title: Ravi Meena v Pushpendra Singh Rathod

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 115

The Rajasthan High Court convicted a police officer for contempt of court in light of the fact that the petitioner's arrest was made by the respondent-police officer merely on the basis of an intimation over WhatsApp, without furnishing a valid notice as contemplated under Section 41-A of CrPC.

The bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar held that intimation made through WhatsApp did not satisfy the requirement of service laid down under Section 41-A, and hence could not be treated as a valid service of notice in the eyes of law.

The Court highlighted that the only communication addressed to the petitioner was the notice sent on WhatsApp which could not be regarded as notice served in a manner laid in law.

“…even assuming that the Investigating Officer had visited the petitioner's residence and did not find him present, it was incumbent upon the officer to ensure service of notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., in accordance with law, including by affixing the notice at the residence or at any conspicuous place.”

'Poverty Can't Be Ground For Incarceration': Rajasthan High Court Releases Convict Kept In Jail For Not Paying Costs Despite Settlement

Title: Santosh Dangi v Firm & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 116

The Rajasthan High Court has held that when prosecution under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act stood settled and the complainant had no subsisting grievance, continued incarceration of the accused solely due to non-compliance of condition of costs for impounding, could not be sustained in absence of willful default.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the costs contemplated by the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. were regulatory in nature that could not be enforced in a manner that resulted in deprivation of personal liberty due to financial incapacity.

“The offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is primarily compensatory in character. Once the complainant stands satisfied, continuation of incarceration solely on account of non-payment of costs would be disproportionate and would defeat the very object of compounding. To permit such a consequence would be to allow a regulatory condition to assume the character of a coercive deprivation of liberty, which is impermissible.”

'Abdicating Constitutional Duty': Rajasthan High Court Criticises State Notification Which Included Transgender Persons In OBC Category

Title: Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Others

Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 117

The Rajasthan High Court, on Monday (30th March), criticised a notification issued by the State of Rajasthan, by which it ordered the inclusion of transgender persons in the Other Backwards Classes (OBC) category.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit delivered the verdict.

The court highlighted that the notification, instead of advancing the rights of the persons, has become an empty ritual without giving any proper benefit to the persons. The court cited an example where a transgender person born into an SC/ST/SEBC community would end up losing out on a reservation, since the impugned notification treated all transgender persons as belonging to the OBC category.

“The State of Rajasthan was under a clear constitutional obligation to translate the mandate of the Supreme Court into tangible policy by carving out a distinct and effective reservation framework for transgender persons. That obligation has been conspicuously abdicated. The impugned circular, far from advancing rights, reduces a binding constitutional directive to an empty ritual,” the court said.

Inviolable Aspect Of Personhood Now At Risk Of Becoming 'State-Mediated Entitlement': Rajasthan High Court On Transgender Bill 2026

Title: Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Others

Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 117

The Rajasthan High Court has remarked that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, which seeks to amend the Transgender Act 2019, is seemingly taking away a transgender person's right to self-determination.

Justice Arun Monga noted that the right to self-perceived gender identity, which was guaranteed under the 2019 Act has been taken away in the recent amendment and the new amendment proposes that recognition of gender identity would be conditioned under certification and scrutiny. The court thus remarked that the amendment has reduced a transgender person's personhood to a state-mediated entitlement.

“The subsequent amendment to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, however, marks a departure from that said constitutional baseline. It is now proposed that legal recognition of gender identity shall be conditioned upon certification, scrutiny, or other forms of administrative endorsement. What was recognized by the Supreme Court as an inviolable aspect of personhood now risks being reduced to a contingent, State-mediated entitlement,” the judge said.

'Lawyers Can't Be Treated Like Servants': Rajasthan High Court Quashes JDA's Orders Removing Advocates For Violating Terms & Conditions

Title: Pratap Singh v/s The Jaipur Development Authority And batch

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 118

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that lawyers have dignity which cannot be compromised and they cannot be treated like servants, wherein there engagement or disengagement has to be as per the reasonable terms and conditions

In doing so the court set aside various orders passed by the Jaipur Development Authority removing assistant advocates engaged by it, observing that the authority had neglected the terms and conditions incorporated by them.

The court further said that while State has an authority to engage the lawyers of its own choice and confidence, however, any action for engagement or their removal should be reasonable and not arbitrary.

It said that when the terms and conditions of engagements of Assistant Advocates like the petitioners before the court, provided for their removal only on count of work performance then the authority could not have disengaged or cancel their engagements "at their whims".

April 2026

Rajasthan High Court Directs Admission Of NEET-PG Candidate Denied For Want Of Permanent Registration Certificate

Title: Dr. Parnika Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 119

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a doctor who was denied admission in the college allotted through NEET-PG 2025, on the ground of not possessing the original Permanent Registration Certificate issued by the Chhattisgarh Medical Council, in light of Clause 4.6 of the NEET-PG 2025 Information Bulletin.

While making a reference to Regulation 8(3) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (PGM 2000) that grants one month period after admission to obtain such registration, the bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati held that administrative/executive instruction/information bulletins could not override statutory regulations.

“This reflects a purposive legislative intent aimed at preventing undue hardship to the meritorious candidates, who may be in the process of obtaining permanent registration at the relevant point of time…action of the respondents in denying admission to the petitioner solely on the ground of non-production of the Permanent Registration Certificate at the time of reporting is arbitrary, and in direct contravention of Regulation 8 (3) of the Regulations of 2000, as well as the governing framework under the NMC notification Dated 29.12.2023.”

Repeated Custodial Transfers Strain Police, Exchequer: Rajasthan High Court Permits Accused Booked In 100+ FIRs To Attend Trials Via VC

Title: Ranveer Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 120

While allowing the petitioners, accused in over 100 FIRs to appear in proceedings through video conferencing, Rajasthan High Court specified the practical difficulties in cases where an accused was implicated in hundreds of FIRs, including systemic implications of repeated inter-state custodial production.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that in such circumstances, unless there were compelling reasons requiring in-person presence, feasibility of securing appearance through video conferencing deserved serious consideration.

“If the presence of the accused is not in dispute and identification is not a matter of contest, and the sole object is to secure a formal appearance, the question that arises is whether the mechanical issuance of production warrants, entailing the physical transportation of the accused with a sizeable escort, is justified in every case. When such exercise becomes a recurring monthly ritual, four times a month or every week, the cumulative financial and administrative burden is substantial.”

FIR Wrongly Quashed For All On Partial Compromise: Rajasthan High Court Recalls Order, Differentiates It From Review

Title: Supriya v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 121

While exercising its power to recall, Rajasthan High Court set aside its order that inadvertently quashed an entire FIR based on a compromise that was reached between the complainant and only two accused, and granted liberty to the investigating agency to proceed against remaining accused in accordance with law.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that rectification of such inadvertent error by recalling relevant portion of the order did not amount to exercising review. Rather, it was a legitimate exercise of court's inherent authority to correct accidental or clerical mistakes to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail In 'Digital Arrest' Case Involving ₹80 Lakh Fraud On 83-Year-Old

Title: Navin Temani v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 122

The Rajasthan High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by a “key conspirator” in an international cyber fraud racket that involved digital arrest of an 83-year old woman who was deceived and coerced into transferring her entire savings of around Rs. 80 Lakhs from her bank account.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain rejected the plea of compromise put forth by the petitioner on the ground that firstly the claimed compromise was not even signed by the accused himself but by his father. Further, it was held that the gravity of the offence had a larger societal impact.

The Court further exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant relief to the 83-year old complainant who had contended suffering due to acute financial hardships, and directed the trial court to release the seized amount of around Rs. 13 lakhs to her, on suitable terms and conditions, within 7 days.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Unreasoned Suspension Order By RSRTC Officer, Bars Her From Discharging Duty Until Legal Training

Title: Pradeep Gupta v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 123

Quashing an unreasoned order passed by the Executive Officer (traffic) of State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) concerning suspension of a worker, the Rajasthan High Court directed the DoP's Principle Secretary to ensure that the concerned officer was given training about the procedure and legal principles.

While underscoring the significance of a reasoned order, the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain further directed that the officer shall not be allowed to discharge her duty relating to management of human resources in RSRTC, until the aforementioned training was complete.

Civil Services Rules | 'Awaiting Posting Orders' Can't Be Used To Bypass Disciplinary Process For Alleged Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dr. Tejpal Katewa v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 124

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the Awaiting Posting Order (APO) against the petitioner who was accused of misconduct, opining that the lawful course of the action was to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, instead of bypassing the same by invoking APO order under Rule 25A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (RSR).

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that this was a classic case of colourable exercise of power that undermined rule of law and procedural safeguards of a public servant, and was also hit by the doctrine of malice in law since the power was exercised for an extraneous purpose as compared to its object.

“…Rule 25A has been invoked ostensibly for administrative purposes, but in reality, to deal with alleged misconduct of the petitioner. This constitutes a classic case of malice in law, as the power has been exercised for an extraneous purpose…The emphasis, therefore, is not on the state of mind of the authority but on the legality of the purpose for which the power is exercised. If a statutory authority acts without lawful justification or for a purpose alien to the statute, such action is vitiated by malice in law.”

Rajasthan HC Quashes 'Organ Removal' Case Against Shelter Home, Says Culpable Homicide Charge Impossible When Act Alleged On Dead Body

Title: Bishan Lal & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 125

The Rajasthan High Court quashed the cognizance for culpable homicide not amounting to murder taken against a charitable home shelter working for the destitute, accused of illegal organ removal, by the family member of a person who was rescued by the society. It was opined that the charges were legally unsustainable and based on mere speculations.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted the admitted position of complainant that his brother had died of natural causes but was subject to organ removal by the petitioners thereafter, and opined that if an act was committed on a dead body, it could not be culpable homicide since the victim had already passed, and the essential requirement of attempting to cause death of a living human was missing.

“…308 IPC applies to the acts committed against a living person with the intention or knowledge that such acts would cause death of the person. It is quite surprising that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners with the allegation that after the death of the deceased-Sitaram, an attempt was made to cause his death by way of removing organs from his body.”

'Profound Invasion Of Privacy': Rajasthan High Court Directs Centre, Meta To Remove 'Obscene Images' Of Minor From Instagram

Title: Mohan Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 126

While directing Centre to coordinate with Meta Platforms to remove "obscene and private images" of a minor boy from social media, the Rajasthan High Court observed that dissemination of private and intimate content without consent was not only a legal wrong, but a "profound invasion of dignity and irreversible consequences".

Underscoring the far-reaching, compounding and deeply invasive consequences of such unauthorized circulation, Justice Farjand Ali in his order observed that while intermediaries are afforded conditional immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, a principle commonly understood as the doctrine of “safe harbour” however such immunity is neither absolute nor unqualified.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the far-reaching consequences of such instances, calling it a “digital scar” which was not confined to the moment of initial publication but was like a permanent imprint on life, dignity and identity.

The Court held that the injury caused due to such instances not only took a psychological and emotional toll on the victim, but also had many social ramifications like stigma, ostracization, and loss of social standing that extended to any individual irrespective of gender, affecting personal relationship, professional opportunities, and overall standing in society.

“The scope of such objectionable content, as can be gathered, extends to material over which the user has no lawful entitlement, content that offends decency or morality, invades the privacy of individuals, or tends to harass or demean persons on impermissible grounds. It further encompasses content which may facilitate unlawful activities or disturb societal harmony by fostering hostility between different sections of the community.”

Plea Of Alibi Can't Be Considered At Stage Of Cognizance Under S.319 CrPC: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vikram Sharma & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 127

The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a plea challenging cognizance taken by the District Court against the petitioners-accused for rioting and murder, opining that the plea of alibi cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance, and it had to be proved by the accused at the appropriate stage of defence.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage more than prima facie case is required to be seen against the accused not charge-sheeted. The merits and the defence of the accused cannot be appreciated at this initial stage of taking cognizance. The defence, so put by the accused, with regard to his plea of alibi that they were not present at the place of occurrence would be taken into account by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage of trial. There is much more prima facie evidence available on the record for summoning them to face the trial.”

Industrial Tribunal Allowing Legal Representation To Workman But Not Employer “Manifest Inequality”: Rajasthan High Court

Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Ors. v Hansraj Sharma

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 128

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that Industrial Disputes Tribunal permitting the workman to be legally represented while denying the same representation to opposite party–the industry, amounts to "manifest inequality" violating principles of natural justice.

In doing so the court quashed Industrial Disputes Tribunal's order wherein workman's application under Section 36 Industrial Disputes Act, prohibiting AIIMS, Jodhpur to secure legal representation was allowed. Section 36 regulates representation of parties in industrial adjudication to maintain informality, as per which representation by a legal practitioner was permissible with the consent of the other party and with the leave of the Tribunal.

“…the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that discretion under Section 36 of the Act of 1947 must be exercised on sound judicial principles. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the respondent was effectively availing legal assistance; no prejudice would have been caused by permitting the petitioners to be represented through counsel.”

'Only Prima-Facie Case Needed At Summoning Stage': Rajasthan High Court Upholds Cognizance Order Against In-Laws In Dowry Death FIR

Title: Mangtu Ram & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 129

Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea against a trial court order taking cognizance against a woman's in-laws under Section 498A IPC, observing that at the stage of summoning there has to be only prima facie satisfaction and that the allegations of dowry demands, torture by the in-laws were sufficient to proceed against them.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that at the stage of summoning of accused, there had to be just prima facie satisfaction of the Court.

The court said that while the petitioners' allegation that the deceased was suffering from Bipolar Disorder, though no such evidence was placed before the trial court, and whether this was the reason behind the suicide cannot be adjudicated by the high court at this stage. This fact, the court said, would be appreciated by the Trial Court at appropriate stage of the trial.

Rajasthan High Court Converts S.24 HMA Appeals Into Writ Petitions Amid Uncertainty On Maintainability; Says Justice Cannot Wait

Title: Kaushlya Soni v Ravikant Soni, and other connected appeals

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 130

In the background of uncertainty on the question of maintainability of appeals against orders passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (1955 Act), the Rajasthan High Court converted the pending appeals to writ petitions to ensure expeditious disposal and speedy justice.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that the issue of maintainability being the subject of the pending reference had a direct bearing on the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the appeals. At the same time, it was stated that the principle of justice delayed justice denied, could not be ignored.

“In such a situation, judicial discipline and propriety require that we refrain from rendering a determination which may pre-empt or conflict with the decision to be rendered by the Larger Bench. Accordingly, the question relating to jurisdiction and maintainability ought to await its determination thereof by the Larger Bench, upon resolution of the reference and not by us.”

Rajasthan High Court Asks State To Frame Policy Curbing Khap Panchayat 'Diktats', Says Social Boycott Violates Citizens' Fundamental Rights

Title: Deepa Ram Meghwal v/s State of Rajasthan & Others and Batch

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 131

The Rajasthan High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State Government including formulation of a policy and Standard Operating Procedure to ensure comprehensive adjudication of complaints by citizens against "diktats" and "social boycott orders" issued by Khap Panchayats.

In doing so the court highlighted that Khaps "have been a deeply concerning practice appears to be prevalent in certain rural settings" wherein a group of influential persons who have no lawful authority, assume themselves to be an extra-legal governing body. These bodies, acting in the guise of a “panchayat” or association, issue diktats to the villagers at large, mandating a complete social and economic boycott of a particular individual or family.

"Any extra-constitutional authority or informal body assuming the power to impose such sanctions is wholly impermissible in the eyes of law. The absence of a dedicated legislation in the State of Rajasthan has resulted in a regulatory vacuum, leading to ineffective prevention, inadequate prosecution, and continued perpetration of social boycott practices. The situation, thus, warrants serious consideration at the legislative and executive level, so that an appropriate legal framework may be put in place to effectively address and eradicate this pernicious practice," the court said.

The court directed that the State Government shall endeavour to finalize the policy and SOP within a reasonable period of time. Once formulated, the policy and SOP shall be circulated widely to all concerned authorities and shall be given due publicity, so as to ensure awareness, effective implementation, and strict compliance at all levels.

'Manifest Infirmity': Rajasthan High Court Criticizes Sessions Court For Reversing 'Well-Reasoned' Discharge Of Theft Accused

Title: Anuj Kumar & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 132

While discharging accused in a theft case, Rajasthan High Court affirmed that even though a detailed order was not obligatory at the stage of framing of charges the order must reflect conscious application of judicial mind and cannot be cryptic or mechanical.

In doing so the court ruled that the Sessions Court order which set aside the discharge of the petitioners was manifestly infirm as it did not indicate any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the findings recorded trial Court.

"The distinction, therefore, is not merely lexical but substantive: while mere suspicion is conjectural and infirm, grave suspicion is grounded in material particulars and carries legal weight sufficient to justify continuation of criminal proceedings. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is constrained to observe that the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court suffers from manifest infirmities. The learned revisional Court, while reversing the well reasoned order of discharge, has failed to indicate any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. There is a conspicuous absence of independent analysis of the material on record".

Magistrate Can't Mechanically Order FIR Against Public Servants Without Following S.223 BNSS Safeguards: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Prashant Kaushik & ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 133

The Rajasthan High Court has held that Magistrate cannot under Section 175(3) BNSS mechanically direct registration of FIR against public servants over acts committed in discharge of their official duties, without following the statutory safeguards provided under Section 223(2) BNSS.

In doing so the court underscored that Section 223(2) is a substantive safeguard so that criminal law is not used as a tool of vendetta.

Setting aside the Special Court's directions to register FIR against petitioner-police officials, Justice Farjand Ali held that the object of Section 223(2) BNSS was to balance the right of a complainant to seek redressal and the necessity to shield public servants from undue harassment.

'Shocking': Rajasthan High Court Slams Rejection Of Minor Rape Survivor's Compensation Claim On Technical Grounds

Title: S d/o A v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 134

While expressing shock and surprise, Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) that rejected a minor rape victim's application for interim compensation, and asking her to get requisite certificate from the SHO/Magistrate.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme 2011 (“Scheme”) was not followed by the respondent in its letter and spirit, and opined that instead of rejecting the application, DLSA should have asked the concerned authority to send the required certificate.

The Court then passed a general direction for Rajasthan State Legal Service Authority (RSLSA) and all DLSAs to adopt a uniform policy for distribution of the amount, as interim and final compensation for rape victims, instead of insisting them to get certificate from the SHO or court.

Family Courts Can't Transfer Cases, Power Lies Only With HC Or District Court Under Section 24 CPC: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Hema v Mohit Bhardwaj

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 135

The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that family courts lack the power to transfer cases from one family court to another within the same district as Section 24 CPC only empowers District Courts or High Courts to transfer cases.

Section 24 CPC states, that High Court or District Court can while acting on an application or suo motu, transfer, withdraw, or re-transfer suits, appeals, or other proceedings pending before it or any subordinate court.

"Family Court lacks jurisdiction to transfer cases from one Family Court to another even within same District and Section 24 CPC empowers only the District Court or the High Court, not Family Courts to transfer cases. Since, Family Courts are governed by their own special statutes and no such power to transfer cases is conferred upon them, the Family Court cannot exercise powers of transfer under Section 24 CPC"

'Competition Must Be Among Equals': Rajasthan High Court Says Home Guard Selection Can't Pit Experienced Volunteers Against Fresh Candidates

Title: Jhalkan Singh Rathore & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 136

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to a bunch of Home Guards who were allegedly terminated orally, by opining that in relation to new recruitment, if the petitioners were already having some experience as volunteers in Home Guards Department, they were required to be screen initially and if found eligible, to be taken into services.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman held that even though the screening itself did not confer any right on the petitioner, the right to be considered, if the Government chose to fill up the volunteers in the Home Guards Department, lied with the petitioners. It was held that such screening had to be among the petitioners only.

“If the petitioners are already having some experience by engaging them as volunteers in the Home Guards Department and if the Government chooses to fill up any vacancies available for recruitment to the post of volunteers in the Home Guards Department, the petitioners are required to be screened initially and whoever is found eligible for recruitment, they are required to be taken into services.”

Accused Can't Be Denied Effective Cross-Examination Due To Counsel's Absence: Rajasthan High Court Permits Recall Of Eyewitness

Title: Bhupendra Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 137

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to a murder-accused who was unable to effectively cross-examine an eye-witness, owing to the absence of his counsel on the particular day, by accepting the recall application filed by the accused, which was initially rejected by the trial court.

While terming the order of the trial court as “overly technical”, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that even though the opportunity to cross examine the said witness was granted to the accused, it stood vitiated since the counsel was not present.

The Court opined that a lay accused could not be expected to conduct the cross-examination with same skills as that of a trained legal practitioner.

“The absence of counsel on the relevant date cannot be viewed in isolation or with pedantic rigidity, particularly when the consequence of such absence results in the deprivation of a meaningful defence. A lay accused cannot be expected to unravel inconsistencies, test veracity, or impeach the credibility of a crucial eyewitness with the same dexterity as a trained legal practitioner.”

Once Reference Is Accepted, Should Be Decided On Merits: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Labour Court Order Rejecting Reference As Defective

Title: Narayan Bairwa & Ors. v District Manager, Food Corporation of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 138

The Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the Labour Court which had dismissed a reference as defective after spending 20 years on its adjudication, opining that once a reference was accepted the Labour Court was duty bound to answer it on its merits.

Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a plea wherein the petitioners had alleged that they were orally terminated from employment by respondent Food Corporation of India. Pursuant to failure of the conciliation, the Government examined the failure report and after considering existence of an Industrial Dispute, made a reference before the Labour Court.

In the present case, the Labour Court accepted the reference for adjudication. Once such reference is accepted, the Labour Court is duty bound to answer the reference. Any shortcoming in the reference has to be read along with the evidence led by the parties. The Labour Court ought to have decided the claim on the basis of evidence on record and ought to have adjudicated the matter on merits instead of dismissing the reference holding that it is defective".

'Abuse Of Process' To Pressurise Govt Officials: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Contempt Plea Over False Transfer Claim With ₹5,000 Costs

Title: Krishan Gopal Kumawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 139

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a contempt petition with a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner for filing false and misleading information regarding compliance of an order passed by the coordinate bench of the Court.

The petitioner had claimed that the coordinate bench decision directed the Registrar Board of Revenue to transfer the petitioner from Education department to Revenue Department.

However, based on the perusal of records, Justice Ravi Chirania highlighted that no such order was passed by the coordinate bench, and opined that the petitioner had furnished false and misleading information about the Court's order.

No Contributory Negligence For Riding Without Licence Or With Two Pillion Riders Unless Directly Linked To Accident: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Smt. Pushpa & Anr. v Hemraj & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 140

The Rajasthan High Court held that the mere act of riding a motorcycle without having a valid license and with 2 pillion riders might be a violation of Motor Vehicles Rules, but such acts by themselves could not be a basis to assume contributory negligence of the deceased in an accident unless there was a specific finding to that effect.

Justice Sandeep Taneja further affirmed that since the deceased was a barber, his monthly income had to be calculated based on the minimum wages of a skilled worker and not that of an unskilled one, considering that under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the State Government had treated a barber as a skilled worker.

“…despite concluding that deceased was not at fault in the accident, the learned Tribunal attributed contributory negligence to him merely because he did not have a valid driving license and was riding the motorcycle alongwith two pillion riders… this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in holding the deceased liable for contributory negligence.”

Magistrate May Seek Police Assistance Under Section 225 BNSS To Probe Complaint Without Ordering FIR: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Jogendra Pal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 141

Rajasthan High Court has held that under Section 225 BNSS before issuing process, a Magistrate can–without ordering an FIR, direct a police officer or any other person who he thinks fit to conduct an investigation on a complaint to decide if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.

The court observed that this investigation under Section 225 BNSS is "an extension of the Magistrate's inquiry" and not a substitute for police investigation under Section 175 BNSS, wherein the purpose of the former is to assist the Magistrate in concluding his inquiry before issuing process.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further observed that “investigation” used in Section 225 did not mean a "full-fledged police investigation", neither it authorized exercise of coercive powers like arrest or filing of charge sheet. Rather, it led to a discreet report or factual input to aid the Magistrate in forming his opinion for proceeding further.

“A significant and progressive departure introduced under the BNSS is the incorporation of a participatory safeguard, whereby the proposed accused is accorded a limited right of hearing at the pre-process stage. This innovation seeks to infuse procedural fairness and to prevent mechanical issuance of process without due application of mind, thereby strengthening the balance between the rights of the complainant and the proposed accused.”

S.94 BNSS | Husband Can Seek Wife's Employment Records To Oppose Maintenance Claim: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Arvind Kumar v Smt. Namita

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 142

Rajasthan High Court has held that a husband can seek his estranged wife's employment records under Section 94 BNSS in order to oppose her maintenance claim, reiterating Supreme Court's 2020 judgment which held that either of the parties may seek production of relevant documents from the other party.

In doing so the court allowed a man's application under Section 94 BNSS before the trial court seeking disclosure of wife's earnings who was stated to be working as a nurse at a Private hospital, on the ground that the same were not disclosed by her in the maintenance proceedings.

While setting aside the decision of trial court that had rejected the husband's application, the bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the information sought was relevant for fair adjudication, and since the concerned hospital where the wife was working was a private institution, Section 94 was clearly attracted.

S.82 CrPC | Absconder Tag Can't Be Invoked Without Exhausting All Reasonable Steps To Secure Presence Of Accused: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Istikhar Khan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 143

Granting relief to a man declared absconder in a cheque bounce case for irregular appearances and failing to follow bail conditions, Rajasthan High Court has said that the absconder tag cannot be invoked without following "all reasonable steps" to secure the accused's presence.

In doing so the court granted the petitioner one more chance to appear and stayed the order issuing a permanent arrest warrant and initiating proceedings declaring him absconder, under Sections 82(Proclamation for person absconding) and 83(Attachment of property of person absconding) CrPC until then.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that the trial court decision seemed 'hasty', without exhaustion of all reasonable and efficacious steps to secure accused's presence.

Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Consider Regularising Employee After 28 Years Of Service, Says Ad-Hoc Appointment Can't Defeat Claim

Title: Shyam Lal v Senior Chemist, Public Health and Engineering Department & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 144

Rajasthan High Court granted benefit to an employee who despite having rendered services for more than 28 years, was not being considered for regularization by the government on the ground that his initial appointment was not towards any sanctioned post, but on an ad-hoc basis.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that the State's plea of petitioner not being engaged on a sanctioned post but only for discharging overburden of work was already considered by the Labour Court, post which petitioner's termination on an earlier occasion was held to be illegal.

In this background, the Court held that the fact remained that the petitioner was still in employment for more than 2 decades, and was denied the right to be considered for regularization, which required Court's interference.

Reservation Granted In One State Can't Be Extended To Another, Backward Classes May Not Share Same Social Realities: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Federation Of Private Medical And Dental College Of Rajasthan v Chairman, Neet PG & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 145

The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that benefit of reservation granted in one state cannot be extended to reserved category candidates belonging to another state, noting that one cannot assume that backward classes across different States "share identical or even comparable social realities".

The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit who was hearing a petition filed by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan regarding reservation in allocation of seats in NEET PG said:

"On a conjoint reading of the constitutional scheme discussed above, the statutory scheme of the Act of 2008 as well as the provisions of PGMER-2023, it becomes evident that castes, races and tribes are classified as SCs, STs, BCs, SBCs or OBCs in relation to each individual states. Such classification and notification are based on the unique socio-economic and cultural realities of that specific region, and the corresponding policy decisions governing reservation are necessarily informed by these State-specific considerations. It cannot be assumed, nor is it capable of empirical determination, that backward classes across different States share identical or even comparable social realities. A necessary corollary of this position is that the benefits of reservation are confined to categories notified in relation to a particular State and cannot be extended to members who are recognised as belonging to a reserved category in another State".

NDPS Act | Correctness Of Recovery, Arrest Memos Must Be Tested At Trial, Not In Writ: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vijay Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 146

While rejecting a quashing petition in relation to an NDPS case rested upon the disputed authenticity and credibility of seizure and arrest memos, the Rajasthan High Court held that such aspects pertaining to credibility, trustworthiness and evidentiary value of the documents prepared during investigation could not be conclusively adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that as per judicial propriety where the trial was underway, higher courts ought to refrain from recording definitive findings on factual controversies that were sub-judice. Any interference amounted to disrupting procedural sanctity of trial and could prejudice either of the parties.

Termination Without Enquiry, Followed By Post-Facto Revocation 'Unknown To Law': Rajasthan High Court Slaps Costs On State

Title: Anil Kumar Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 147

The Rajasthan High Court has criticized the State's action in terminating a contractual employee without enquiry, followed by a post-facto enquiry lading to revocation of termination.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that the entire procedure adopted by the concerned authority was unknown to law and had caused undue hardship and mental agony to the Petitioner. It thus imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the respondents to be given to the petitioner.

“…the entire procedure adopted by the respondents-Authority is unknown to the law. There cannot be any stigmatic termination by ordering an enquiry. Basing on such enquiry, revocation of such a termination order is passed. An illegal procedure has been adopted which is unknown to law.”

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Reinstatement Despite Alleged Illegal Appointment, Cites Violation Of Industrial Disputes Act Procedure

Title: Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat v Shri Banshi Lal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 148

The Rajasthan High Court rejected petition challenging reinstatement of a daily wage worker who was alleged to have been appointed illegally, opining that non-compliance with mandatory procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act had to be followed for termination of the concerned employee.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a petition filed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thated, challenging the order of the Labour Court that had allowed reinstatement of the respondent ex-parte, and the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the order was dismissed.

Govt Department Can't Terminate Outsourced Employee; Can Only Recommend Action To Agency: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chetan Prakash Sharma v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 149

The Rajasthan High Court has held an employee working with government through an outsourcing agency can't be terminated by the department and the proper recourse is to request or recommend action to the concerned agency.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman made the observation while dealing with a case where the Petitioner was working as State Coordinator E-Governance under Rashtriya Gram Swaraja Abhiyan of the Panchayati Raj Department, through an outsourcing agency, and his services were terminated by the concerned department.

The Court noted that instead of approaching the agency with the grievance, the government had directly terminated the petitioner treating him as their employee.

Section 311 CrPC Doesn't Permit Indefinite Delay Where Witnesses Remain Unavailable: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Closure Of Evidence

Title: Chimna Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 150

The Rajasthan High Court has held that when despite all efforts, presence of witnesses summoned under Section 311 CrPC could not be secured, trial court was justified in closing such evidence, thereby preventing efforts that would have resulted in prolonging the trial indefinitely.

The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu further held that a criminal trial is conducted by the State through public prosecutor, and the role of the victim/informant was limited to assisting the public prosecutor and could not be extended to claiming independent or overriding right to conduct or control the prosecution.

Section 311 CrPC | Court Can Summon Material Witness Even If Prosecution Doesn't: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Narayan Lal Rebari & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 151

While allowing an application filed under Section 311 CrPC, Rajasthan High Court held that merely because a material witness was not cited by the prosecution, could not be a ground to deny the opportunity to the accused to summon such witness, when his/her evidence appeared relevant and necessary for a just decision in the case.

The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu was hearing a petition challenging the order of the district court that had rejected petitioner-accused's application under Section 311 CrPC, seeking summoning of the doctor who had prepared the injury reports in the case.

“Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned trial court that it is solely the prerogative of the prosecution to decide which witnesses are to be examined, overlooks the true scope and object of Section 311 Cr.P.C., which empowers the Court itself to summon any witness if his evidence appears necessary for the just adjudication of the case.”

Husband Obtaining Divorce Decree From Foreign Court Without Informing Wife Constitutes Cruelty: Rajasthan High Court

Title: NM v AK

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 152

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a husband obtaining an ex-parte divorce decree from a foreign court without informing the wife, amounts to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal further affirmed that in the present case, the ex-parte decree of divorce passed by a Court in California, USA, could not be relied upon since no certified copy of the same as proved by the husband, and the wife was not given effective opportunity to contest the same.

"Our opinion, ibid, is based on the decisive factor informing us about the conceded circumstance that the respondent-husband secured an ex parte decree of divorce from a court in the United States way back in 2015. The appellant-wife asserts that she became aware of this development only in 2018. Regardless of the precise timeline of such knowledge, the factual significance of this event unliterally by husband cannot be understated. The husband's act of one-sidedly dissolving the marriage abroad is a clear and unequivocal manifestation of his intention to sever the marital bond, apart from leaving the wife shocked, which is nothing but an act of cruelty upon her".

HRA, Other Allowances Forming Part Of Deceased's Income Must Be Included To Calculate Motor Accident Compensation: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Priyanka & Ors. v Swarn Singh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 153

Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the amount paid to the deceased in his income towards Higher Duties allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Washing allowance etc., cannot be deducted while calculating accident compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

While enhancing the compensation to the claimants, the bench of Justice Sandeep Taneja held that the district judge was not justified in deducting such amount while calculating the compensation towards the loss of dependency.

"In view of the law expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in deducting the amount from the monthly salary of the deceased which was being paid to him towards Higher Duties Allowance (HDA), City Compensatory Allowance (CCA), House Rent Allowance (HRA), washing allowance, other misc. allowances. Therefore, the above allowances would be part of the income of the deceased, for the purpose of calculating the compensation towards loss of dependency".

Reverse Burden U/S 139 NI Act Strengthens Fair Trial Rights: Rajasthan High Court Orders FSL Exam Of Disputed Cheque Signatures

Title: Mahesh Tiwari v The State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 154

The Rajasthan High Court has held that since Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a presumption in favour of the cheque holder and places the burden on the accused to rebut that presumption, the right to a fair trial assumes greater significance. The Court observed that where the accused is required to disprove liability, fair and adequate opportunities to defend oneself must be protected more strongly.

“Since the presumption is in favour of the holder, it is for the accused to disprove his guilt. In such a scenario, naturally the right to fair trial becomes stronger. Thus, this right deserves to be protected more strongly and emphatically than in ordinary criminal offences under the Penal Code, 1860.”

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Case U/S 498A IPC Against Sister-In-Law, Says Relatives Often Implicated In 'Heat Of Moment'

Title: PD Gurjar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 155

While quashing cognizance under Section 498A, IPC, against the married sister-in-law of the deceased, Rajasthan High Court observed that it was common that most of the matrimonial complaints were filed in the heat of the moment, wherein the relatives of far-relation were also implicated as accused.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that ordinarily, in matrimonial disputes, the women was subjected to physical violence only by her husband or parents-in-law and married sister-in-law was unlikely to join her brother in demanding dowry from his wife.

“She had nothing to gain from the case or articles of dowry or the articles alleged to have been given by the parents of the deceased to her husband or her in-laws. Therefore, there would be no good reasons for her to intervene in a matter of dowry and harm and harass her sister-in law (the deceased).”

Rajasthan High Court Grants Parole To Life Convict Despite Absconding History, Cites Long Incarceration

Title: Bhuriya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 156

While allowing application for parole of a murder convict with a history of absconding, Rajasthan High Court held that the word “ordinarily” used in Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, reflected that the ineligibility under the Rule had to be seen considering all facts and circumstances of a case.

For context, Rule 14 prescribes classes of prisoners who will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma held that if certain ineligibility was mentioned under the first part of Rule 14, the Court were free to consider the facts and circumstances in the appropriate case.

Citing Manusmriti, Rajasthan High Court Allows Recall Of Prosecutrix In Rape Case After Marriage With Accused; Considers Interest Of Child

Title: Shankar & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 157

Rajasthan High Court allowed application of rape accused to recall the victim and her mother for re-examination in light of changed circumstances of marriage between the accused and the victim as well as a daughter being born out of their wedlock.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if the statements of the victim and mother were not recorded again, it would destroy the matrimonial life of the victim and the accused, as well as the future of their daughter.

While quoting Manusmriti, the Court held that Courts were not mere abiters of breakdown of marriage, but also guardians of marriage, especially when children were born out of it.

“After marriage of the petitioner with the prosecutrix, if any child has born from their wedlock, then it is the duty of the petitioner to protect both the prosecutrix and the child and they cannot be left unprotected. At present, the trial is still going on and if the prosecutrix is recalled, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution and to any other person. As such, this Court can invoke the power provided under Section 311 of Cr.P.C for recalling of these witnesses.”

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Recovery From Employee Over Missing Stock, Says Misappropriation Allegations Require Disciplinary Proceedings

Title: Ashok Kumar Saini v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 158

The Rajasthan High Court has held that when there is any serious misconduct on part of employee resulting in financial loss to the employer, the latter ought to initiate appropriate proceedings as permissible under the regulations, rather than ordering recovery solely on verification report.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a petition filed by government employee who was working as a Mechanic with Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC). A physical verification of stock was conducted by the authority in which 8 tyres and 6 rims were found missing.

“…there is a serious charge of misappropriation. When there is any serious misconduct which resulting in financial loss to the respondents, the respondents ought to have initiated appropriate proceedings as permissible under the regulations. In the present case, simply basing on the verification report, a show cause notice has been issued and after submission of petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice, the impugned order of recovery has been passed.”

Appellate Authority Can't Enhance Punishment In Employee's Own Appeal Without Following Due Procedure: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Sunil Kumar Yadav v Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 159

The Rajasthan High Court has held that an appellate authority under the disciplinary rules of an organisation cannot enhance the punishment in an appeal filed by the delinquent in his/her own interest.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a petition challenging the order of the disciplinary authority as well as that of the appellate authority that enhanced the punishment of the petitioner in an appeal filed by him against the first order.

“The appellate powers are exercisable upon the appeal filed by aggrieved party…Since the provision as referred above enables the appellate authority to enhance the punishment, it does not mean that the appellate authority can enhance the punishment in the appeal filed by the delinquent against his own interest.”

In relation to Regulation 16 as referred to by the State, the Court observed that to be able to exercise power under this, the court first had to take suo moto cognizance. It was highlighted that in the present matter, there was no record to show that such cognizance was taken by the appellate authority before passing order for enhancing the punishment.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Legal Services Authority To Arrange Treatment For Convict's Daughter, Declines Repeated Parole

Title: Jagdish v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 160

While dismissing a convict's plea for emergent parole for his daughter's treatment at AIIMS, the Rajasthan High Court directed the District Legal Service Authority, Sirhoi, to make suitable arrangement for her treatment at Sirohi or at appropriate centre.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma observed that considering the fact that petitioner's daughter was suffering from a psychiatric disorder, she would require regular treatment. However, the petitioner could not be allowed emergent parole at regular intervals.

May 2026

S.125 CrPC | Objective Of Provision Defeated As Exploitation Of Women Continues Due To Legal Loopholes: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Smt. Guddi Bai v Raghuveer

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 163

The Rajasthan High Court, while rejecting a maintenance application under Section 125 CrPC, filed by a woman whose marriage was void due to the subsistence of her and her husband's earlier marriage, described the situation as “unfortunate” and expressed sympathy for the petitioner.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted the legal loopholes that defeated the objective of the provision, and suggested other possible remedies available to the petitioner, like seeking compensation under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act.

“This Court finds it unfortunate that many women, especially those belonging to the poorer strata of society, are routinely exploited in this manner, and the legal loopholes allow the offending parties to slip away unscathed. In spite of the social justice factor embedded in Section 125 Cr.P.C., the objective of the provision is defeated as it fails to arrest the exploitation which it seeks to curb.”

Demand & Acceptance Of Bribe Sufficient To Attract PC Act Even If Public Servant Lacks Authority To Do Favour: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Jagdish Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 162

While rejecting a quashing petition in relation to an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (2018 Act), Rajasthan High Court held that the provision did not require that the concerned public servant was actually in a position to do the official act.

The bench of Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur observed that for the purpose of this offence, it was enough if the public servant accepted the gratification by inducing a belief that s/he would assist the giver with any other public servant, and the giver actually gave the gratification under that belief.

'Victim 4 Days Short Of Majority': Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail In POCSO Case, Notes Consensual Relationship

Title: Anil Kumar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 161

The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused in a POCSO case, taking note of the fact that the prosecutrix was merely four days short of attaining majority at the time of the alleged incident. The Court also considered that, soon after attaining majority, she had approached the court seeking protection from her family and had since been residing with the family of the accused.

Justice Sanjeet Purohit further observed that in her statements, the prosecutrix had unequivocally expressed her desire to marry the accused. The Court also noted her allegation that her family members were attempting to compel her into a marriage against her wishes.

Rajasthan High Court Grants 'Honourable Acquittal', Says 'Benefit Of Doubt' Or 'No Evidence' Improper Where Charges Not Proved

Title: Nishi Mishra & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 164

Rajasthan High Court honourably acquitted two sister-in-laws in a cruelty case observing that while granting acquittal the use of terms "benefit of doubt" and "in absence of evidence" by trial court and revisional court was improper especially when prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand It further observed that even though the concepts of “honourably acquittal”, “acquittal of blame”, “fully acquittal”, were unknown to CrPC, an honourable acquittal may be where the court definitively concluded, based on a full-fledged trial and appreciation of evidence, that the accused had not committed the crime.

The Court highlighted that such acquittal was very different from arriving at that finding based on some lacuna in the prosecution case or in the leading of evidence or due to non-availability of credible evidence. In such a case, the accused was not convicted by giving him benefit of doubt.

Belated Allegations Not Raised In Earlier FIR Indicate Abuse Of Process: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Kamlesh Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 165

Rajasthan High Court held that non-disclosure of a serious offence within a reasonable time or at a relevant time when an earlier crime was registered against the same accused by the same complainant, would falsify the allegations and render the subsequent complaint/FIR/allegations an abuse of law.

While setting aside an FIR alleging rape against the petitioner, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than two months from the date of alleged incident, and that too in the background of an existing property dispute between the concerned family members.

“…impugned FIR No.127/2021 is nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious allegations and under the changed circumstances, where the petitioner was not found guilty in the first FIR No.80/2021 by the Investigating Officer, it would be absurd to allow the prosecution of the petitioner to continue by considering the aforesaid.”

Second FIR Permissible If New Facts Or Larger Conspiracy Emerge From Subsequent Investigation: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dr Charan Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 166

Rajasthan High Court has held that registration of a second FIR is permissible when it presents rival version's set of facts arising from same circumstances in relation to first FIR but pertaining to a "larger conspiracy" and when probe brings out unknown facts at a later stage.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to Supreme Court case of State of Rajasthan v Surendra Singh Rathore and said:

“…when second FIR is in the form of a counter-complaint or presents a rival version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR was registered and when the second FIR is arising from the same set of circumstances, relating to a larger conspiracy and when investigation and/or person related to incident brings to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances, at a later stage, then registration of the subsequent FIR is permissible.”

Sending Abortion Pills Through Courier Not Offence U/S 312 IPC Unless Forcefully Given To Cause Miscarriage: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ishita Bhardwaj v/s State of Rajasthan and connected

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 167

Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR against a woman under sections 312 and 313 IPC, observing that merely sending abortion pills to anyone did not fulfil the basic ingredients of the offence unless such pills were forcefully given to the victim with an intention to cause miscarriage.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also considered the fact that such allegations against the concerned petitioner did not appear in the complaint by the complainant. Rather, these were introduced by the petitioner's husband against whom she had filed a case for cruelty.

“…allegations in both of the FIRs are verbatim same and identical. There is hardly any difference of comma or full stop between both of them. Once the criminal complaint with regard to the same incident and the same offence is not pressed and withdrawn by the victim, then the successive impugned FIR with regard to the same incident and the same offence is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed.”

State Not Bound To Retain Outsourced Lab Technicians After Change In Scheme Execution Model: : Rajasthan High Court

Title: Manish Dotasara v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 168

Rajasthan High Court held that once a scheme was substituted by a new scheme that changed its mode of execution, the State Government cannot be compelled to continue the services of manpower that was being rendered by an outsourcing agency.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman stated that in multiple cases protection was given to the interest of employees working under the manpower agency, but that protection was on the premises that one set of employee could not be replaced with another set merely because of change in agency.

“This Court in number of cases has been protecting the interest of an employees working under the manpower agency to continue such services, even if there was a change in the manpower agency. That protection was given on the premise that a one set of an employee cannot be replaced by another set of employee only on the ground that there is a change of manpower agency.”

Rajasthan High Court Permits Passport Renewal Despite 23 Pending Criminal Cases, Cites Fundamental Right To Travel Abroad

Title: Surendra Pal Singh Sahni v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 169

The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota, rejecting a 66-year-old man's application for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to renew his passport.

The bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that preventing a person from travelling abroad by denying their passport renewal merely because of pending criminal cases is a direct violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21.

The Court highlighted that the impugned order was passed by the Magistrate without proper reasoning or consideration of the relevant legal provisions governing an accused's right to renew his passport. It was held that the order was not in accordance with the law.

Rajasthan High Court Clears Solar Project Near Sambhar Lake, Imposes Safeguards For Migratory Birds

Title: Dinesh Kumawat & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 170

Rajasthan High Court granted permission for establishment of the 100 MW Solar Power Plant Project, in the Nagaur district, near Sambhar Lake subject to certain safeguards to facilitate the environment of migratory birds, rather than hindering their natural habitat.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that the land in question did not form part of the Sambhar Lake or any notified wetland area. However, at the same time, it was highlighted that it was an important breeding ground for migratory birds.

The Court opined that it was their duty to protect the birds that flocked the area during the winter season. In this light, while underscoring the “precautionary principle”, it was directed that the solar panels shall be installed at a height of atleast 1.5 meters that enabled the migratory birds to nest, lay eggs, and breed beneath them without any obstruction.

Reference To Prior Events In State, Allegations Not Integral To Relief Sought Can't Confer Territorial Jurisdiction: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vikas Wadhwa v Punjab and Sind Bank & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 171

Rajasthan High Court held that mere reference to prior events or general allegations which are not directly determinative of the relief sought in the petition, cannot be construed to mean that a part of cause of action has arisen in the State for the court to have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma opined that to deterime territorial jurisdiction, the Court is required to examine the averments made in the writ petition, without entering into the correctness or otherwise of such pleadings. However, such facts must constitute integral, essential or material facts forming part of the cause of action and not merely incidental or ancillary facts.

"A careful reading of the writ petition does not reveal any specific pleading demonstrating that any part of the cause of action, in its material sense, has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court. The petitioner has made general assertions regarding certain events having nexus with a place falling within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, such assertions, even if taken at face value, do not constitute essential or integral facts for conferring territorial jurisdiction to this Court.”

Production Of Accused Before Magistrate U/S 170 CrPC Doesn't Mean Arrest Or Judicial Custody: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Bailable Warrants

Title: Mohammad Atik & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 172

Rajasthan High Court set aside the bailable warrants against accused in a forgery case, holding that once the investigating agency did not think it was proper to arrest the accused during investigation, issuance of bailable or non-bailable warrants should be done by the Court only where the accused was charged with henious crime or was likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.

The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the term “custody” under Section 170 CrPC (Cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient) does not mean that the accused has to be arrested first and sent to judicial custody. It only meant presentation of the accused before the Court.

To Protect Octogenarian Parents, Rajasthan High Court Upholds Eviction Of Their Senior Citizen Son And Daughter-In-Law

Title: Krishnawtar Nagar & Ors. v Smt. Vimla Devi Nagar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 173

While underscoring the mandate and object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and senior Citizens Act 2007, Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by a senior-citizen couple (petitioner no. 1 & 2) against their eviction from the property of their octogenarian parents (respondents).

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain considered that the respondents were octogenarians, who were allegedly subjected to harassment and threats by the petitioner No. 1 & 2 and the grandson (petitioner no. 3). The Court held that such conduct violated the respondents' right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Local Authorities To Demolish Illegal Structures Near Jodhpur Air Force, Army Installations

Title: Rohit Nayak & Anr. v Kailash & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 174

While hearing a Public Interest Litigation relating to illegal constructions within the restricted zones of installations of Indian Airforce and Indian Army in Jodhpur, Rajasthan High Court issued directions to the local authorities for corrective measures.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma opined that the petition raised questions of National Importance, and all permissions granted for constructions within the vicinity of the areas of the two organisations had to be in strict accordance with the notifications/guidelines by the Ministry of Defence/Central Government.

In relation to the layout plans already sanctioned by the local authorities, the Court held,

“…if the layout plan has been sanctioned by the local authorities, the construction permission(s) is/are strictly required to be issued after following the mandatory guidelines/instructions of the notifications issued by the Ministry of Defence/Central Government. If the local authorities find that the construction permission(s) have been issued in violation of mandatory guidelines/instructions of the notifications of the Ministry of Defence/Central Government, then such construction permission(s) should be cancelled.”

Rajasthan High Court Flags Mechanical NDPS Prosecution After Man Implicated Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Without Any Recovery

Title: Akshya v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 175

While granting bail to an accused under NDPS Act, Rajasthan High Court highlighted that the accused was implicated without any recovery from him, solely based on information received from the main accused from whom the narcotics were recovered.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain highlighted “failure in the advice mechanism of prosecution before recommending a charge sheet against any person”.

The Court opined that there may be deficiency or insufficiency of evidence to forward any person for trial, and hence the trial court was required to look into all aspects while framing charges.

It was held that in case of any deficiency, Section 273, BNSS, had to be invoked to award compensation to an innocent person for remaining in custody and also facing unnecessary prosecution.

Cyber Crimes Affect Society At Large, Can't Be Quashed Solely Based On Compromise Between Parties: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Mohammad Rahil Belim v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 176

Rajasthan High Court held that cyber crimes are not merely disputes between private individual but affect digital ecosystem and public confidence in electronic transactions.

Hence, quashing such offences solely based on compromise between the parties shall defeat the objective of the legislation enacted to curb cyber crimes.

The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu held that such offences were capable of affecting large number of unsuspecting persons who relied on digital platforms and electronic communication for financial and commercial transactions. Hence, the offence was not just a private dispute but entered a realm of public interest.

Rajasthan High Court Bars Police From 'Humiliating' Arrested Persons By Posting Their Photos On Social Media, Calls It 'Extra-Legal Punishment'

Title: Islam Khan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 177

The Rajasthan High Court in a recent decision issued a slew of directions to curb public humiliation of arrestees perpetrated by the police and particularly stressed upon the issue of social media condemnation by posting arrestee photos.

Justice Farjand Ali observed that such conduct by the police amounts to imposing a punishment that is not statutorily prescribed and violates the principle of presumption of innocence.

“The phenomenon colloquially described as a “media trial by police”. Such a practice is not a mere by-product of independent journalistic enthusiasm, but rather a State-engineered narrative, wherein the police machinery, through press conferences, orchestrated disclosures, circulation of photographs, and at times even staged representations of arrest, seeks to project an accused person as culpable even before the due process of law has had an opportunity to unfold. Such conduct, in the view of this Court, amounts to a direct transgression of the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, particularly the presumption of innocence, which stands as a bulwark against arbitrary State action…the power to investigate does not encompass the power to declare guilt…The practice of subjecting an accused to public condemnation through media exposure, staged photographs, or other such acts amounts to an extra-legal penalty.”

Finding a need for immediate and strict corrective measures, the Court went to issue the certain directions, including strict adherence to the SOP, ban on public parading, prohibition of social media condemnation, etc.

Once Officer's Conviction Is Quashed, Employer Can't Check If Acquittal Was Honorable Before Considering Reinstatement: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rohitashva v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 178

Rajasthan High Court has held that an acquittal is sufficient for considering reinstatement of an official earlier dismissed invoking Rule 19 Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules where only disqualification is conviction, and the authority cannot look into whether the acquittal was honorable or not.

Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules provides for a special procedure for taking disciplinary action without conducting a full inquiry. The employer has the authority to impose penalties which are allowable under Rules 16, 17, and 18 of the Rules of 1950 upon conviction on criminal charges by the competent Criminal Court.

The Court highlighted certain situations in which the relevance of honourable or doubtful acquittal could be seen. The Court opined,

“There may be instances of drawing parallel proceedings where the allegations are common in both departmental and criminal proceedings. Part from that the appointing/ disciplinary authority, instead of initiating independent departmental proceedings parallel to criminal proceeding, may also place the employee under suspension and wait for the judgment of the Criminal Court, or may wait for the judgment without suspending the employee or initiating any departmental proceedings.”

S.480 BNSS | Merely Being A Woman Is No Ground For Bail In Serious Offences Like Murder: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chhoti Devi v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 179

The Rajasthan High Court recently denied bail to a mother-in-law accused along with her son and husband of murdering her daughter-in-law (deceased) by strangulation.

The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu rejected the contention raised by the counsel that being a woman, the applicant deserved to be given the benefit of bail as per the provision under Section 480, BNSS.

The Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Rekha K.C. v Jyotibhai and Anr. and opined that merely if an accused was a lady, the same was not a reason to grant bail when the alleged offence against the concerned woman were serious in nature.

“Merely because the petitioner is a lady, she cannot be released on bail giving her the benefit of provisos under Section 480 BNSS specially when the offences involved are serious in nature,” the Court said.

Rajasthan High Court Seizes Mobile Phone After Litigant's Driver Found Recording Court Proceedings, Issues Contempt Notice

Title: Kamal Rathore v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 180

Rajasthan High Court issued show-cause notices to a litigant and his driver involved in recording the Court proceedings using mobile phone, in a covert and unauthorized manner, terming the act as prima facie criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the actions not only amounted to interference with the administration of justice but also lowered the dignity of the Court.

“Breathtaking Irony”: Rajasthan High Court Bars Felling Of Rare Desert Tree 'Khejri' For Solar Projects Without Prior Approval

Title: Shri Jambeshwar Paryavaran And Jeev Raksha Pradesh Sanstha v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 181

While hearing a petition seeking prevention of cutting of Khejri trees for solar projects, Rajasthan High Court observed that humanity's movement towards ecological evolution had left a trail of environmental destruction.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah stated that maybe it was time for the today's rulers to issue “farmaan” as was done in 1730 AD by the then Maharajas to save the tree and protect the ecological balance.

“The Khejri, a rare desert tree of ecological significance, grows in sparse isolation, barely one tree per half a square kilometer. Yet it is slated for felling. The reason? To make way for solar power generation. The irony is breathtaking, to say the least… This court hopes and trusts that the committee will explore every viable alternative to avoid any further felling of even a single tree and permitting what would be an irreversible loss.”

Number Of Convictions, Acquittals Obtained By Prosecutors Can't Be Sole Basis For Adverse Entries Against Them: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rajasthan Prosecution Officers Association v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 182

While dismissing challenge to the Annual Appraisal Performance Form (“Form”) of the Prosecution Officers, Rajasthan High Court opined that collection of data regarding the number of convictions and acquittals per se could not be said to be an arbitrary action as long as that data was not being used for recording adverse entries against the officers.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman however held that if the data was used for recording performance simply based on the number of acquittals or convictions, it would violate the principles of fair play.

Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Not Producing Eligibility Certificate Which Department Was Bound To Obtain: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ms. Shubhra Panwar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 183

The Rajasthan High Court has held that where the onus to procure the Certificate of Eligibility regarding the nationality of a candidate rests upon the appointing government-department, no adverse action can be initiated against the candidate for not approaching the Ministry of Home Affairs for obtaining the same.

The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati was hearing a quashing petition filed by a government employee, against a Charge Sheet issued against her with the allegations that she had failed to submit a certificate of eligibility regarding her nationality.

The Court further opined, “…in the case of migrants from foreign countries who intend to settle permanently in India, their eligibility in respect of nationality, age and allied concessions is not rigidly governed by general rule, but by such executive instructions as the State Government may issue, which are broadly consistent, with necessary modifications, with the policy laid down by the Union of India.”

Post-Mortem Report Cannot Prevail Over PAN Card, Driving Licence To Determine Age Of Deceased: Rajasthan High Court

Title: United India Insurance Company Limited v Smt. Mamta Sharma & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 184

The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that when determining the age of a deceased, the date of birth mentioned in his/her PAN Card, Driving License will prevail over the age determined through post-mortem.

The observation was made by Justice Sandeep Taneja while dealing with appeals against award granted by Motor Accident Tribunal.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that it was established that the accident occurred due to the negligence and rash driving of the car's driver. Further, it was also considered established that the truck driver was also negligent and responsible for the accident.

“…when a person dies or is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers and not because of the negligence of the deceased / injured, then it will be a case of composite negligence of those wrong-doers and in that case, each wrong doer, will be jointly and severally liable to the claimants for payment of the damages and the claimants have the choice of proceedings against all or any of them.”

Spouses Living Separately Due To Government Service Postings Doesn't Amount To Desertion: Rajasthan High Court

Title: L v P

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 185

The Rajasthan High Court has held that it is not uncommon for spouses employed in government services to reside at different places due to their postings and thus, mere fact of separate residence owing to such exigencies cannot by itself constitute 'desertion' to become a ground for divorce.

Furthermore, the division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that not every quarrel, harsh word, or domestic disagreement rose to the level of cruelty.

It was opined that cruelty, as a ground of divorce, had to be of such nature and degree that caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the aggrieved that it would be harmful or injurious to continue living with the other party.

Customary 'Nata Marriage' During Subsistence Of First Marriage No Defence To Bigamy Under Hindu Marriage Act: Rajasthan High Court

Title: L v P

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 185

The Rajasthan High Court has held that customary “Nata Marriage” cannot be accorded legal recognition as a valid defense to the charge of bigamy, since doing so shall render the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”), meaningless, absurd and virtually repealed owing to judicial tolerance of the custom.

For context, Nata Marriage was a custom prevalent in certain communities of Rajasthan where a person enters into second matrimonial union without legally dissolving the first marriage.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah opined that this custom disproportionately harms women and results in vulnerability of both the sets of women.

“A Court of law is not an instrument available to a wrongdoer to consecrate his wrong. The appellant, having made his choice in 1997 with open eyes and without legal authority, must bear its consequences, and those consequences cannot, in law or in conscience, be visited upon the respondent.”

'Treated Himself Above Law': Rajasthan High Court Fines Ayurveda Dept Director ₹50,000 For Defying Orders Halting Pension Benefit Recovery

Title: Dr. Ram Gopal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 186

Rajasthan High Court imposed a personal cost of Rs. 50,000 on the Director of the Directorate Of Ayurved, Department Of Ayurved And Bhartuya Chikitsa of the State Government for non-adherence of court orders halting recovery of pension benefits.

The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania was hearing a petition wherein the petitioner had challenged the order of the respondent-Director directing initiation of recovery of pension benefits of the petitioner.

It was the case of the petitioner that an earlier petition was filed by him against such an order which was allowed, and special appeal before the division bench was dismissed. Furthermore, in an identical matter, the SLP filed by the respondent-department was sub-judice in the Supreme Court, wherein the apex court had said that "in case any amount has already been paid to the respondent, the same shall not be recovered during pendency of the petition".

'Atta-Satta' Marriages Morally & Legally Bankrupt, Girl Child Made Bargaining Instrument : Rajasthan High Court

Title: KB v SK

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 187

While hearing petition against a dismissed divorce application, Rajasthan High Court made certain observations about the prevalent practice of “Atta Satta” marriage, and opined that in a constitutional democracy, such practices deserved unequivocal social and legal repudiation.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal held that aata-satta involving a minor was not a benign cultural practice, but it commodified children, suppressed consent, entrenched patriarchy and gave way to future conflict.

“Communities cannot invoke custom to override statute. No social practice can legitimize what the law prohibits and condemns.”

While underscoring the prohibition of child marriages in India, the Court stated that when marriages were arranged as a reciprocal exchange between families, involving minors, custom became an oppressive social mechanism where children, particularly girls, were used a matrimonial barter and bargaining instruments between families.

It was further opined that what was more tragic about this practice was that instead of each marriage standing on its own footing, the fate of both the marriages were tied to one another. If one marriage broke down, retaliation followed in other household as well.

The Court held that such structure was fundamentally unjust.

Economic Dependence, Social Pressure Keeping Wife In Matrimonial Home Can't Negate Cruelty; Endurance Is Not Consent: Rajasthan High Court

Title: KB v SK

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 187

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that many women continue to remain in difficult marriages out of economic dependence, social pressure, children, lack of shelter, fear of stigma or absence of parental support. Thus, mere fact that spouses reside together for some years does not automatically negate allegations of cruelty.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that shared physical resident does not equate to harmonious cohabitation, rather at times, it represents a period of forced endurance under adverse conditions.

“A wife staying because she has “nowhere else to go” cannot be treated as proof that no cruelty existed. Endurance is often mistaken for consent and/or condonation.”

“Cruelty, particularly mental cruelty, is not confined to dramatic physical acts; it encompasses all forms of conduct, subtle or overt, which make continued cohabitation unbearable. The learned Family court has given undue weight to the fact of co-residence, rather appears to have maximized its import against the appellant, while minimizing the psychological damage inflicted upon the appellant by the refusal of her basic rights within the matrimonial home.”

No Rape Case Made Out Against Legally Wedded Husband When Wife Was Major At Time Of Marriage: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Gajendra Mourya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 188

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a rape FIR filed against a man by his wife, opining that in light of the definition of rape under Section 375, IPC and the Supreme Court ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, the aspect of consent within marriage was rendered legally immaterial for prosecution of offences like rape.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand clarified that since the petitioner was the legally wedded husband of the victim, offence of rape was not made out owing to the exception 2 under Section 375, IPC.

“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is a major lady of the age of above 18 years at the time of marriage and she herself has solemnized marriage with the petitioner on 12.04.2021, lodging of the impugned F.I.R. on subsequent date amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. stand quashed and set-aside.”

Magistrate Cannot Mechanically Order FIR Against Public Servants Without Following S.223 BNSS Safeguards: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Prashant Kaushik & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 189

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence against public servants or direct registration of FIR under Section 175 BNSS without first following the safeguards provided under Section 223 BNSS.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali considered the fact that the complaint against the public servants was registered by a person against whom an FIR was registered at the same police station, and charge sheet was filed by the police. Further, the investigating officer, in the present matter had submitted a negative final report opining a retaliatory motive behind the FIR.

The Court observed that due to the intertwined nature of allegations and the surrounding factual complexities, it becomes imperative to adopt a cautious and balanced approach, ensuring that while the grievance of the complainant is not prematurely discarded, adequate protection is also afforded to public servants against vexatious or retaliatory prosecution.

Magistrate Becomes 'Functus Officio' After Order On Final Report, Can't Pass Separate Order On Protest Petition: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Devesh Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 190

The Rajasthan High Court has held that once Magistrate Court passes an order on a Negative Final Report, it becomes functus officio and cannot pass a second order on a protest petition later on.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held:

"...whenever a Final Report (FR) Negative is submitted by the police in the Court, the Magistrate has to issue notice to the complainant informant. After receipt of the notice if the complainant appears and does not file a protest petition, then the Magistrate can hear the arguments of both sides and he would either accept the FR if no case is found to be made out or reject the FR and take cognizance against the accused if prima facie any case is made out against him.”

Adoption Deed Alone Not Enough; Valid Hindu Adoption Requires Proof Of 'Giving And Taking' Ceremony: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Hari Ram v Chunni Devi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 191

The Rajasthan High Court has held that adoption cannot be recognized in the eye of law merely based on the strength of an executed document. It opined that the ceremony of actual giving and taking of the child concerned is a mandatory feature under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the same is not a mere formality.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing challenge against a decree and order of the appellate court, that had ruled the adoption deed in question to be invalid and unenforceable in law.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Teacher's Suspension For Criticising Minister Online, Says 'Executive Displeasure' Cannot Override Law

Title: Lal Singh Chouhan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 192

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the suspension of a government teacher over his social media comments against a sitting Minister.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that the suspension order was silent on the statutory source of power under which the petitioner was suspended. It opined that executive displeasure or perceived embarrassment could not substitute statutory authorization.

The Court observed that at the maximum, the allegations might have attracted departmental inquiry, as per law.

“Merely because allegations are levelled that the image of a Minister has been sought to be tarnished does not bestow unbridled authority upon administrative officers to invoke suspension according to their subjective satisfaction. In a constitutional framework governed by legal discipline, authorities cannot assume unto themselves powers not vested by law… Administrative convenience or subjective perception cannot supplant mandatory legal requirements.”

Man Booked For Sharing Sensitive Military Info With Pakistan Gets Bail From Rajasthan High Court Over Non-Supply Of Grounds Of Arrest

Title: Jhabra Ram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 193

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to a man booked over 'grave allegations' of transmitting strategic and sensitive information about military establishments to Pakistani handlers, considering that the investigating agencies failed to fulfill the mandatory requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing.

Stating that it was 'left with no other option' than to grant bail despite such grave allegations, bench of Justice Praveer Bhatnagar emphasized that strict adherence to the constitutional and statutory safeguards assumes even greater significance in cases involving potential serious ramifications on national security and sovereignty of the nation.

The Court further opined that the duty to ensure compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards governing arrest, was not only upon the investigating officer effecting the arrest, but also upon the prosecuting agency and the Magistrate supervising the remand proceedings.

High Court Can't Act As 'Third Court Of Facts' In Second Appeals Under Section 100 CPC: Rajasthan High Court

Title: LRs of Mahaveer Singh & Ors. v Narendra Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 194

The Rajasthan High Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, the High Court is not expected to function as a 'third court of facts' for undertaking fresh factual inquiry or reassessing evidence, merely because another view was possible from the record.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the findings of fact by the courts below carried a presumption of correctness and sanctity, that could be interfered with only when such findings were demonstrated to be patently perverse, manifestly illegally or resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.

“The jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC is intended to preserve legal uniformity and correct substantial errors of law, and not to reopen factual controversies conclusively adjudicated by the courts below.”

Maintenance Meant To Prevent Starvation, Not Impose 'Crushing Financial Burden' On Husband: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rakesh Sharma v Manju Devi & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 195

The Rajasthan High Court has held that directing payment of maintenance from the date of application, after inordinate delay in conclusion of proceedings, in certain cases can result in an excessively onerous financial burden on the husband, especially upon a salaried person or someone having limited means.

While underscoring the true objective of maintenance as prevention of immediate destitution, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that delays in maintenance proceedings could not be attributed solely onto the parties. Hence, court cannot impose responsibility of such delay on either of the parties.

In this light, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met if maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of order instead of from the date of filing of application.

Disputed Cruelty Allegations Pending In Criminal Case Can't Form Basis For DV Act Compensation: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ₹2 Lakh Award

Title: Rakesh Sharma v Manju Devi & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 195

The Rajasthan High Court has held that when allegations of cruelty or harassment are matters of separate criminal proceedings, which are sub-judice, the court exercising jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violent Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), ought not to grant compensation founded upon such disputed allegations.

While setting aside such compensation, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that the jurisdiction under the DV Act was remedial and protective in nature, which could not be stretched to convert the proceedings into a substitute for criminal adjudication.

“Any categorical observation or grant of compensation founded upon disputed allegations, which are yet to be adjudicated in criminal proceedings, would virtually amount to pre-judging the controversy and may seriously prejudice the rights of either side in the pending prosecution.”

Saving Belongings From Fire Caused By Snapped Live Wire Not Negligence: Rajasthan High Court Enhances Compensation In Electrocution Death Case

Title: Gopiram & Ors. v the Ajmer Vodyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 196

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a man electrocuted while trying to save his belongings from a fire caused by a snapped live electric wire could not be blamed for negligence, observing that such conduct was a “natural human response in an emergent situation.”

Enhancing compensation from ₹1.25 lakh to ₹3 lakh in the fatal electrocution case, Justice Farjand Ali said the law does not expect a person to remain a “passive spectator” when his dwelling is engulfed in flames.

The bench added that compensation “cannot be symbolic” and must have a restorative character, and thus enhanced the compensation from ₹1.25 lakh to ₹3 lakh.

It observed that the jurisprudence of compensation had moved beyond the rigid formulas, and now the courts were expected to adopt a holistic and liberal interpretation.

Foreign Nationals Have Right To Speedy Trial: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Bangladeshi Approvers In 'Illegal Kidney Transplant' Case

Title: Nurul Islam & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 197

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to Bangladeshi citizens, accused in the case of illegal kidney transplantation and human trafficking, noting that the foreign nationals were approvers on whose statements the principal accused persons were arrested and they too are entitled to fundamental right of speedy trial under Article 21.

The court further said that the foreign nationals cannot be kept in custody until termination of trial thereby "putting them in the circumstances worse than the principal accused persons" who have already been granted bail.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the petitioners were in prison since April 2024, and their statements were already recorded in the trial court. It was opined that they could not be put in a position worse than that of the principal accused persons.

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Pension For Ex-MLAs, Dismisses PIL Challenging 1956 Law

The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly (Officers and Members Salary, Emoluments, and Pension) Act, 1956 (“Act”), insofar as it provides pensionary benefits to former Members of the Legislative Assembly (“MLAs”).

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that petitioner's interpretation of reading an implied prohibition against grant of pension to former legislators, in the Constitution, was not correct. Such prohibition could not be inferred in the absence of any express constitutional limitation.

“Once the competence of Parliament to enact laws providing pensionary benefits to Members of Parliament has been recognized, and the State Legislature derives legislative competence in relation to “State pensions” under Entry 42 of List II read with Article 246(3) of the Constitution of India, the challenge raised to the impugned enactment cannot be sustained merely on the ground that Article 195 expressly refers only to “salaries and allowances”.

Public Purpose Like Road, Crematorium Cannot Be Achieved At Cost Of Destroying Natural Water Channels: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ramji Lal Saini v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 199

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the use of a 'Gair Mumkin Nala' (natural drainage and water flow channel) cannot be altered for any non-conforming purposes, like construction of road or a crematorium, merely on the ground that the utilisation was for a public purpose.

While directing the State to remove any road, crematorium structure, or encroachments from the concerned land, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the State had failed to discharge its statutory and constitutional obligations towards preservation of natural water channels.

“…unless natural water bodies and water channels are zealously protected and preserved, the right to a dignified and sustainable life of the common citizen stands seriously imperilled…Though increasing urbanisation, developmental expansion and demographic pressures may give rise to competing land-use demands, such considerations cannot legitimise actions which are contrary to law and destructive of ecological balance.”

Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Cancel Bail Granted To Woman SHO Accused Of Diluting NDPS Case For ₹10 Lakh Bribe

Title: State of Rajasthan v Smt. Seems Jakhar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 200

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the bail cancellation application filed by the State against a woman SHO, accused under NDPS, opining that once the bail was granted, it could not be cancelled in a mechanical manner or merely because the offence was serious.

After hearing the contentions, the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain referred to the Supreme Court case of Abhimanyu Etc. v State of Kerala, to hold that bail once granted could be cancelled only if any of the bail conditions were violated, or the accused misused liberty, or tampered with evidence, or influenced the witnesses.

Order VI Rule17 CPC | Mere Delay In Seeking Amendment Of Pleadings Not Ground To Reject It: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Bhawani Singh Shekhawat v Fanishwar Sharma

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 201

The Rajasthan High Court has held that mere delay in making an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not enough by itself to refuse such an amendment, since the delay could be compensated in terms of money.

The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma highlighted that the purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17, CPC was to allow either party to alter and amend the pleadings in a manner that was just. It was opined that such amendment had to be allowed if the same was required for proper and effective adjudication of the matter, and to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

Compassionate Appointment For Kin Of Permanently Disabled Employees Applicable Even If Accident Predated Rules: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Karan Pratap Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 202

The Rajasthan High Court has held that date of accident has no relevance while considering application for compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Permanent Total Disabled Government Servants Rules, 2023, if on the date of enforcement of the Rules, the condition of permanent total disability existed.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that the Rule did not prohibit considering of such cases where the accident that led to the permanent total disability occurred prior to the date of enforcement of such Rules.

“Court finds that the petitioner cannot be discriminated by the respondents by raising an artificial grounds which is not available under the Rules of 2023. The Rules nowhere specifically prohibits consideration of such cases where accident has taken place prior to date of enforcement of such Rules.”

Rajasthan High Court Asks State To Consider Establishing Well-Equipped Investigation Labs For Expeditious Criminal Probes

Title: Prem Prakash Bidyasar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 203

The Rajasthan High Court held that in the current era of rapid pace, where criminals were adopting the latest and advanced techniques to commit crimes, the investigation mechanism of the police has to be strengthened with modern and well-equipped Investigation Labs that have adequate scientific facilities.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted the unavailability of such labs in Rajasthan and the resulting reliance of the State Police on reports and analysis from labs situated in other states. It was opined that this causes unnecessary delays, thereby violating the right of fair investigation and speedy trial.

Superior Police Officer Can Order Further Investigation Before Filing Of Charge-Sheet: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Taimoor v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 204

The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that a superior Police officer has the authority to direct further investigation and permission for conducting further investigation is not required to be obtained from the Court, if the original charge-sheet is not submitted.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand however clarified that after submission of the charge-sheet, such order of conducting further investigation can be passed only by the concerned Court.

"Can't Sail In Two Boats": Rajasthan High Court Rejects Parallel Challenge To Cognizance And Framing Of Charges

Title: Anil Prakash Goyal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 205

The Rajasthan High Court has held that even though multiple remedies might exist with a litigant, once selection was made regarding the remedy to be pursued, that operated as a bar on simultaneous initiation of a parallel remedy.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that the aggrieved party could not be allowed to “sail in two boats” by availing parallel remedies for common grievance. It was stated that such practice had to be deprecated.

“Once a party chooses to pursue one remedy (eg. revision), he/she is bound by it and cannot switch over to another. Essentially a litigant must choose his/her path and he/she cannot be allowed to “hedge his bets” by way of pursuing two parallel remedies simultaneously for espousing the same cause.”

The Court also highlighted the even otherwise, when the court framed charges against the accused, the order of cognizance ceased to have independent existence. Hence, no separate grievance in relation to the cognizance could be entertained post framing of charges.

'Fair Trial Requires Mental Fitness': Rajasthan High Court Upholds Release Of Murder Accused Arrested After Absconding For 30 Yrs

Title: Sonu Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 206

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a trial court order releasing a murder accused, who was arrested by the police after 30 years of absconding. The release was ordered based on the medical report that certified that the accused was suffering from dementia, and thus was not having cognitive ability to understand or participate in the court proceedings.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected the argument of the complainant that the application for such release was filed at a pre-mature stage and could be filed only after the trial commenced.

The Court observed that once the fact of accused being mentally unfit for the court proceedings was established, waiting for the trial to reach the stage of framing of charges would be merely an “empty formality”.

Reservation Can't Justify “Complete Abandonment Of Merit”: Rajasthan HC Quashes Selection Of 1200+ Class-IV Candidates With Near-Zero Marks

Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 207

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the selection list to the extent of around 1200 candidates of Class IV government employees, mostly within the reserved category, who were selected despite having achieved zero or virtually zero marks in the written examination.

State has been directed to undertake fresh exercise of preparation of merit list to this extent.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that public employment was not charity and every public post, however small it might be, carried public duties and responsibilities. It was held that the state could not assume that for Class-IV posts, no minimum merit or competence was required.

Article 21 Protections Extend To Foreign Nationals: Rajasthan High Court Orders Release Of Thai Woman's Passport In Gold Smuggling Case

Title: Saisuda Chuennok v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 208

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the release of a Thai national's passport, accused of being a habitual gold-smuggler, holding that denial of such permission would violate her fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further observed that there were sufficient statutory safeguards to address the apprehension of the accused person absconding to her mother-land, in form of the Immigration and Foreigners Order, 2025.

"The protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right of life and personal liberty, extends to all persons and this right is not confined to the Indian Citizens alone and it is available to the Foreign Nationals as well. The Right to Life with Dignity guaranteed under Article 21 is available to all human beings, including foreigners," it observed.

Revised Pay Rules | Doctors Consciously Engaged In Private Practice Can't Seek Non Practicing Allowance Attached To Surrender: Rajasthan HC

Title: State of Rajasthan & Anr. v Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, and other connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 209

Rajasthan High Court set aside the order that directed the State to step up the pay of those Medical Officers who had not opted for Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA), to ensure their pay parity with their juniors who had opted for the NPA.

Justice Anand Sharma observed that Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules recognized two separate classes of medical officers, with and without NPA, for pay fixation. Once the distinction was statutorily recognized, it could not be pleaded that both categories were similarly situated for the purpose of revision of pay.

“…mere seniority does not guarantee identical pay where difference arises due to operation of statutory rules, grant of additional allowances, special incentives or exercise of options by employees themselves. The higher pay being drawn by juniors in the present case is not on account of arbitrary action of the State but due to a lawful benefit available only to those doctors who had opted for NPA.”

'Filing Indecent Photos Invades Her Privacy': Rajasthan HC Issues Guidelines To Protect Sexual Offence Victim's Identity In Court Filings

Title: N v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 210

Taking a serious note of the practice of annexing "obscene" photographs, videos of parties in pleas concerning sexual offence cases thereby disclosing the prosecutrix/survivor's identity, the Rajasthan High Court issued a slew of directions for the high court Registry and the State's trial courts on filing of such material.

The Court highlighted the adverse implications on the woman involved after her identify was revealed owing to such practice.

While underscoring gross violation of Article 21, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand laid down a “mechanism” to be followed by the Registry and the Trial Courts, where such obscene photos/videos were placed on record by the accused/police/any other party to the litigation.

Poverty Can't Defeat Right To Bail; Accused Can't Be Kept In Jail For Want Of Sureties: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vaibhav v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 211

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the condition of furnishing sureties imposed on an accused, who was granted bail but was not released, since he was not in a position to furnish the sureties.

The Court opined that poverty should not violate accused person's right to life and liberty under Article 21.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that no accused person could be incarcerated for an indefinite period of time, only on the sole ground that he was not in a position to arrange for sureties for being released on bail.

Adarsh Cooperative Society 'Scam': Rajasthan High Court Revokes Default Bail Granted To Co-Accused On Ground Of Incomplete Charge Sheet

Title: State of Rajasthan v Rajeev Kumar Rana

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 212

Rajasthan High Court cancelled the default bail granted under Section 167 (2) CrPC, to one of the co-accused, Rajeev Kumar Rana, under IPC, Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, and IT Act (2000), in an alleged Rs. 9238 Crores Loan scam case.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that merely recording the fact that the investigation was incomplete was not sufficient to grant bail. Instead, the trial court was required to apply its mind on what are the counts on which the investigation was pending, and whether the charger sheet/documents submitted by the police were sufficient to proceed.

Rajasthan High Court Imposes One-Year Social Media Ban On POCSO Accused Held For Allegedly Cyber-Stalking Minor

Title: R v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 213

While granting bail to a POCSO accused, Rajasthan High Court imposed a unique condition that bars him from using all kinds of social media platforms for 1 (one) year, for ensuring safety of the victim.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that if the accused was found using social media under his own name or any other fictitious name, during this period, the bail order shall be recalled.

'Strikes At Very Core Of Dignity': Rajasthan High Court On Police Allegedly Humiliating Accused By Parading Him In Female Attire

Title: Puranmal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 214

The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of police authorities' alleged conduct of shaving an accused's head and forcefully making him parade in a crowded market-place in woman's clothes.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined the incident to be such that struck at the very core of human dignity and constitutional morality, and stated that the petitioner had the option of instituting proceedings for damages, compensation or personal injury.

June 2026

Court Can't Take Cognizance Of Offence Under Water Act Without Valid Authorization By Pollution Control Board: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Pramod Jain v the Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 215

Rajasthan High Court has said that in absence of a valid authorization by the Pollution Control Board or a competent officer authorized by the Board, in favour of the complainant under Section 49 of Water Act, a criminal court cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act.

The court said that as per the "prima facie material" placed before it, showed absence of any authorization by the Pollution Control Board or any officer authorized by the board in this behalf. The court thus said that the Magistrate shall consider whether any authorization letter was issued by the pollution control board or any other person in this behalf for the purpose of filing of the complaint before him prior to filing of the criminal complaint.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Formation Of Panel To Examine Issue Of Faulty Answer Keys, Wrong Questions In Public Recruitment Exams

Title: Yasmeen Bee & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 216

Expressing concern at recurring instances of faulty answer keys and incorrect questions in public recruitment exams, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to constitute a "High Level Committee of Senior IAS Officers" to examine the issue and formulate an SOP ensuring transparency and accuracy in future recruitment exams.

The court passed the direction, while upholding the right of meritorious candidates who were denied appointment to posts of Teacher Grade III Level II in 2022, based on original answer key which was subsequently revised after a long-drawn litigation. Based on revised answer-key, petitioners secured higher marks than some of the already appointed candidates.

In several cases, candidates who were initially denied appointment are thereafter found to have secured higher marks than some of the candidates already appointed on the basis of the original answer key. Denial of appointment to such more meritorious candidates, despite there being no fault attributable to them would be wholly arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Rights of more meritorious candidates cannot be permitted to be defeated on account of a faulty evaluation process attributable solely to the recruiting agency," the court said.

Rajasthan HC Expresses Surprise On Refusal For Complainant's Narco-Test Citing Language Barrier Despite Consent, Orders Fresh Murder Probe

Title: Feliram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 217

Rajasthan High Court expressed shock at the refusal of the concerned authority from conducting narco-test of the complainant in a murder case–who had consented to the same, on the ground that he was not fluent in Hindi.

Rather the authorities were required to depute someone who was acquainted with the mother tongue of such witness/suspect or victim, in whose presence the test could be done, it said. The court further said that Investigation Officer cannot close the investigation only on the ground that unknown accused persons were untraceable.

"It is quite shocking and surprising to entertain the aforesaid submission and reasoning behind refusing to conduct narcoanalysis test of the petitioner. If any witness is not acquainted with a particular language or is not fluent in Hindi language, this alone cannot be a ground for refusal of conducting narcoanalysis test of such person/suspect/witness. Under such eventuality, the Authorities concerned were expected to depute a person, who is acquainted with the mother tongue of such suspect/witness/victim, in whose presence, the concerned narcoanalysis test can be conducted".

O.31 R.5 General Rules 2018 | Mandatory To Serve Summons To Armed Forces Personnel Through Commanding Officer: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dhananjay Kumar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 218

Rajasthan High Court has said that an armed forces personnel–posted as a Soldier, Sailor or Airman, must be served summons for service of a case through their commanding officer as provided under General Rules (Civil & Criminal) 2018.

The court was considering the question 'Whether the service of summons upon a person, who is posted as Soldier, Sailor or Airman in the Armed Forces can be treated as sufficient service, if the summons are send by the registered post?'

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that such requirement was mandated by Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal) 2018 (the “Rules”) so that sufficient time was granted for making necessary arrangement for relieving the concerned person from the operations of the Armed Forces.

Appointment Under Sports Quota Can't Be Denied For Representing University Outside State: Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Candidate

Title: Mamta Kumari v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 219

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a candidate who sought appointment to the post of Teacher under “Outstanding sports Person” category, earlier denied the benefit on the ground that certificate issued to her for participating in the Championship was for representing Haryana and not Rajasthan.

In doing so the court referred to the advertisement and said that the essential requirement was participation in any individual or team event in an All Indian Inter University Tournament duly recognized by the Association of Indian Universities; it nowhere stipulated that such participation must necessarily be while representing Rajasthan alone.

Therefore, once a candidate has participated in the prescribed tournament, the benefit of reservation cannot be denied merely on the ground that the candidate represented a University or Institution situated outside the State of Rajasthan. Any such restrictive interpretation would defeat the plain and literal meaning of the clause".

Subsequent Penalty Cannot Affect Promotion Against Vacancies That Arose Prior To Issuance Of Punishment Order: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Principle Secretary & Ors. v Dalbir Singh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 220

Rajasthan High Court held that the effective date for calculating past 7 years' record of government employee for consideration of promotion would start from the date vacancy accrued for the concerned promotion, and not the date of the incident against which disciplinary proceedings are initiated.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that any penalty had an impact on the promotion to be granted to the employee. However, such impact shall be on the promotions to be granted subsequent to the date of issuance of penalty and not for promotions against which the vacancy had accrued prior to issuance of the penalty order.

"It goes without saying that any penalty whether major or minor, has its effect, as per prevailing rules and circulars, over the promotion to be granted to the employee, yet it is settled that such penalty shall have its effect on promotions to be granted subsequent to date of issuance of penalty order and not in respect of promotion which is to be granted against the vacancy accrued on a date prior to issuance of penalty order".

'Claimant Inactive For Years': Rajasthan High Court Upholds Order Restricting Grant Of Interest From Date When Formal Demand Is Raised

Title: M/s Shalimar Electrical v M/s Kanchan India Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 221

Rajasthan High Court held that where the claimant did not issue even a demand notice within a reasonable time, and remained inactive for a considerable period, the Court was justified in restricting the grant of interest only from the date on which a formal demand for payment was first raised.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Mishra and Justice Bipin Gupta held that once the claimant did not assert its alleged right within a reasonable time, it could not subsequently claim interest for the period during which it voluntarily remained silent without any justification.

“It is a settled principle of law that once the plaintiff-appellant itself remained dormant for a considerable period and did not assert its alleged right within a reasonable time, it cannot subsequently claim interest for the period during which it voluntarily remained silent.The said principle is further reinforced by the maxim 'Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt', meaning 'the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights'…A party cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own inaction and seek interest for the entire interregnum despite having failed to initiate any prompt recourse for recovery of the alleged dues.”

Accused Can't Be Made To Sit At Police Station All Day Without Concrete Evidence: Rajasthan High Court Asks SP To Monitor 5-Yr Murder Probe

Title: Gangasahay & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 222

While considering a plea to quash a murder FIR, Rajasthan High Court directed Dausa Superintendent of Police to monitor the investigation pending for over 5 years and to ensure that the accused persons were not harassed unnecessarily on the pretext of being required for interrogation, unless there was certain evidence against them.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that investigating officer could not be allowed to call the accused person at the police station and compel them to remain there from morning to evening, without being sure of presence of any concrete evidence against them.

"The Superintendent of Police, Dausa is directed to monitor the investigation and ensure that the petitioners are not harassed unnecessarily only on the pretext that there presence is required for interrogation, unless and until there is certain amount of specific evidence against them. In case, interrogation of the petitioners is required, then the Investigating Officer is granted liberty to interrogate the same, but he cannot be allowed in any case to call the accused persons at the Police Station and compel them to remain there from morning to evening, without being sure about any concrete evidence against them".

Rajasthan High Court Partly Allows Accused's Plea To Summon Document On POCSO Victim's Age, Says No Delay In Filing S.91 CrPC Plea

Title: Ranjeet Raigar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 223

Rajasthan High Court has partly allowed a POCSO accused's plea challenging a trial court order which had rejected his application under Section 91 CrPC seeking production of the complainant's admission ticket issued by the Community Health Centre to determine her age.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that an accused could not be deprived of the opportunity of a fair trial. It said:

"This fact is not in dispute that when the statements of the victim were recorded before Trial Court on 29.02.2021, this fact was not within the knowledge of the petitioner that the victim has given birth to a child at the Community Health Centre, Phagi, District Jaipur where she has mentioned her age as nineteen years. This fact came into his notice at a later stage. Thereafter, an application was submitted by him to seek information regarding the birth of the child of the prosecutrix from the Community Health Centre, Phagi under the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 and the aforesaid information was provided to the petitioner by the Primary Health Officer, Community Health Centre, Phagi on 17.01.2023.

Rajasthan High Court Restores Appeal Dismissed For Non-Removal Of Defects, Says Party Can't Suffer For 'Procedural Abdication' By Lawyer

Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Nava & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 224

Rajasthan High Court restored an appeal which was earlier dismissed on account of non-curing of defects observing that administration of justice cannot be permitted to founder upon hyper-technicalities, nor can a party be made to suffer irreversible prejudice for the inadvertent default or procedural abdication of his legal representative.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali said:

"An appeal assailing such findings cannot be dismissed in limine merely because the advocate could not remove the defect within stipulated time. Such a procedural irregularity, attributable to counsel, does not ipso facto efface or annihilate the substantive and statutory right of appeal vested in the accused. Furthermore, any order resulting in dismissal under such circumstances must be a reasoned and speaking order, evincing conscious and judicious application of mind to the factual and legal substratum of the case. It must delineate the rationale which impelled the Court to adopt such a course and withstand scrutiny on the touchstone of fairness, proportionality, and judicial propriety. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to undertake a further appraisal of the judgment under challenge".

Cheque Bouncing | Complainant Can't Question Nexus Of Document To Transaction After Denying His Signature, Handwriting On It: Rajasthan HC

Title: Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 225

While adjudicating a cheque dishonour case, Rajasthan High Court held that once the complainant disputed his/her handwriting and signatures on a particular exhibit, such denial disentitled him/her from contending that the document had no nexus with the transaction involved.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a petition challenging the order of the trial court that had rejected petitioner's application seeking referral of disputed documents to the FSL for examination.

“This Court is of the view that had the complainant admitted the execution of the receipt while simultaneously explaining that the same was unrelated to the transaction in question, the matter might have stood on a different footing altogether. However, once the complainant has taken a complete stand of denial regarding both handwriting and signatures appearing on Exhibit D01A, such denial, prima facie, disentitles him from subsequently raising a plea that the document bears no nexus with the transaction involved in the complaint. The appropriate course for the complainant was to clarify in his testimony itself that the receipt in question had no concern with the transaction forming subject matter of the complaint".

33 Years On Rajasthan High Court Acquits Man Of Attempt To Murder; Says Grievous Injuries, Dangerous Weapon Insufficient Without Intention

Title: Puran Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 226

While setting aside a 1993 order convicting a man for attempt to murder, Rajasthan High Court held that the fact of grievous or repeated injuries using a dangerous weapon, would not by itself attract such conviction without the ingredient of intention or knowledge to commit the offence.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that the courts had to carefully segregate whether the assault was the result of a deliberate homicidal design, or a sudden quarrel, temporary provocation, emotional instability or loss of self-control.

"It is well settled that the nature of weapon used, the part of body chosen for assault, the severity of injuries inflicted, antecedent animosity, motive, surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused before and after the occurrence are all relevant considerations in determining the existence of the requisite intention. However, the mere fact that grievous injuries were caused or that a dangerous weapon was used would not, ipso facto, attract Section 307 IPC unless the prosecution further succeeds in establishing the indispensable ingredient of intention or knowledge to commit murder.The distinction between an offence under Section 307 IPC and offences relating to voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt is often subtle yet legally profound. While grievous or repeated injuries may constitute an aggravating circumstance, the same cannot substitute the indispensable mental element required for constituting an offence of attempt to murder. Courts are therefore required to carefully discern whether the assault was actuated by a deliberate homicidal design or whether it emerged out of a sudden quarrel, temporary provocation, emotional instability or loss of self-control"

Workmen's Compensation Act | Taking Deceased To Hospital On Humanitarian Ground Not Enough To Assume Employment Relationship: Rajasthan HC

Title: United India Insurance Co. v Shanti Devi & Ors., and other connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 227

Rajasthan High Court set aside a claim granted in favour of a deceased man's family under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and held that taking deceased to the hospital on humanitarian grounds was not sufficient to establish employer-employee relationship in absence of any documents.

The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania opined that in a society, many a times people extended their help to those in need around them, on humanitarian grounds, however, those acts could not become the basis to assume employer-employee relationship.

In the society, many a times people extend their support and help to the people in need around them on humanitarian grounds, however, those acts cannot be the basis to assume relationship of employer and employee. This Court, after considering the complete evidence of the above three witnesses and findings as recorded by learned Commissioner, for deciding the two substantial questions of a law as raised, has reached to the definite conclusion that the learned Commissioner committed an error in law while passing the impugned judgment in disregard of the fact that the respondent No. 1 and the other two witnesses have completely failed to satisfy the first basic requirement to claim compensation under the Act of 1923, which is to establish the proof of the employment of the injured/deceased with the employer".

Can't Brush Aside Allegation: Rajasthan High Court Upholds FIR Against Forest Officer Accused Of Using Dummy Candidate In Recruitment Exam

Title: Pramila v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 228

Refusing to quash an FIR against a forest officer accused of using a dummy candidate in the recruitment exam, the Rajasthan High Court held that offences pertaining to manipulation of a public examination process could not be lightly brushed aside at the threshold.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a quashing petition in which the allegations against a serving Forest Guard was that a dummy candidate had appeared in her place in the relevant examination, and that led to her unlawful selection at the post.

"The allegations pertain to manipulation of a public examination process conducted by a constitutional recruitment body, which strikes at the very foundation of transparency, fairness and institutional integrity governing public employment. Offences of such nature cannot be lightly brushed aside at the threshold, particularly when the investigation is being conducted by a specialized agency and material collected during enquiry prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioner, namely that the alleged dummy candidate was intended to appear for her sister and not for the petitioner herself, constitutes a matter of factual adjudication requiring appreciation of evidence, which cannot appropriately be undertaken by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. At this stage, this Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations and material collected during investigation disclose commission of cognizable offences warranting continuation of investigation".

Candidate Deprived Of Public Employment Over Lodging Of FIR Despite Negative Final Report Violates Article 14: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Lal Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 229

Rajasthan High Court held that depriving a candidate of public employment merely due to registration of FIR that resulted in negative report, was not only arbitrary but also punished a candidate for no fault of his.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that such a proposition placed a citizen's career at the mercy of someone who chose to file a false complaint.

“The mere registration of an FIR is not proof of involvement; it is, at best, an allegation, and an allegation that has been negatived on investigation carries no legal consequence against the person so accused. To hold otherwise would mean that any candidate could be deprived of public employment simply because a disgruntled relative or adversary chose to lodge a false complaint, a proposition that would place a citizen's career at the mercy of the malice of others and reward the very act of false implication.”

State Cannot Profit From Its Own Failure To Maintain Service Records: Rajasthan High Court Orders Release Of Retiral Dues, ₹50K Cost

Title: Shri Shanti Lal Dholi v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 230

The Rajasthan High Court slammed the State for non-release of pensionary dues to the petitioner who retired in 2023, on account of non-completion of the service book, terming it as “inexcusable administrative inaction”.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that the service book had to be maintained and updated by the employer i.e. the State. Hence, it was manifestly unjust to allow the State to profit from their own default by withholding the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

The Court directed the release of the dues within 60 days, and in case of failure, have directed that the salaries of the concerned District Collector be withheld. Furthermore, a cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the State, to be recovered from the salary of the officer who shall be found responsible for failure to complete the service book.

Contractual Employees Can't Be Replaced By Another Set Of Contractual Employees: Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Vocational Trainers

Title: Govind Ram Yadav & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 231

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioners who were serving as vocational trainers for several years, and were deployed through third party agencies i.e. vocational training providers (VTPs). The services of the petitioners were terminated after the State terminated the contract with the VTPs.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain directed the State to engage the petitioners directly through a contract and pay them honorarium directly through the bank transfer mechanism.

The Court opined that it was settled in many cases that a set of contractual employees, whether engaged directly or indirectly, could not be replaced by another set of contractual employees, unless the service was replaced by a regularly selected candidate.

Terms In Past Advertisement Does Not Create Vested Right For Candidates To Insist On Same In Future Public Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Nitin Kumar Jhalani & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 232

Rajasthan High Court held that inclusion of a particular condition in past year's advertisement for public recruitment did not create any vested right in favour of candidate to insist upon identical conditions in the future recruitments too.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that every recruitment process was an independent exercise and the employer was competent to modify or clarify eligibility conditions in accordance with administrative requirements and statutory rules.

"The contention raised regarding the previous recruitment conducted in the year 2021 also deserves rejection. Merely because a particular stipulation may not have been incorporated in an earlier advertisement does not create any vested right in favour of candidates to insist upon identical conditions in future recruitments. Every recruitment process constitutes an independent exercise and the employer is competent to modify or clarify eligibility conditions in accordance with administrative requirements and statutory rules.

Wife Continuing Dowry Case After Taking ₹20 Lakh Alimony & Mutual Divorce Is Abuse Of Law: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Satyapal Sharma & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 233

The Rajasthan High Court held that continuation of proceedings against ex-husband and his family by the ex-wife even after receiving a lumpsum amount of Rs. 20 lakhs as alimony and procuring a decree of mutual divorce, amounted to abuse of the process of law.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the matter indicated a reverse trend wherein the complainant-wife, despite having compromised the dispute and attaining divorce & alimony, was continuing prosecution so that the petitioners were compelled to suffer the protracted proceedings and incurring continued expenses.

The Court rejected the complainant's argument that criminal proceedings were independent of the divorce proceedings, and opined that in the present circumstances her conduct clearly indicated that the criminal proceedings were filed only to harass the petitioners.

Court Does Not Become 'Functus Officio' After Directing Probe Under S.156(3) CrPC, Must Call For Progress Reports: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Sumann Mundhara v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 234

Rajasthan High Court held that once the direction for investigation was issued by the Criminal Court in terms of Section 156(3), CrPC, it does not become functus officio, but remained under an obligation to call for progress reports in case it found that the investigation was not completed within a reasonable time.

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed that the Court had noticed many cases in which the proceedings remained pending before the Trial Court for years while repeated dates were fixed mechanically calling upon the effective status/progress report from the investigation agency.

"This Court has come across several writ petitions been filed only on account of non-compliance of directions issued by the Magistrate for conducting investigation in pursuance to order passed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C [175(3), BNSS]. It has been witnessed that in all such matters, despite specific direction of the Magistrate to carry out the investigation and file a conclusive report, neither is the investigation concluded within a reasonable period nor are the progress reports been filed for a long period. This Court has noticed that in many of such cases, the proceedings remain pending before the Trial Court for years while mechanically fixing repeated dates calling upon the effective status/progress report from the investigating agency. As a consequence, litigants approach this Court in extra-ordinary jurisdiction calling for implementation of orders which otherwise fall within the supervisory domain of the concerned Criminal Court.

SC/ST Act | Cognizance, Charge-Framing Orders Are Appealable U/S 14A, Can't Be Challenged Directly U/S 482 CrPC: Rajasthan HC

Title: Sandeep Kumar Arora v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 235

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging order of cognizance and framing charges under the SC/ST Act, 1989 (“the Act”) opining that these orders were appealable under Section 14A of the Act.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the order of taking cognizance and order of framing charges were not interlocutory in nature, and as per Section 14A of the Act, an appeal lied against any judgment, sentence, or order not being interlocutory.

The Court observed that since the statute provided for filing an appeal, a person could not be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the appellate authority by filing a petition under Section 482, CrPC.

Civil Services Candidates Require Impeccable Character; Acquittal On Benefit Of Doubt Not Automatic Clean Chit: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Sarita Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 236

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the rejection of petitioner's candidature for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services, in light of 2 (two) criminal cases against her alleging extortion after impersonating as public servant, that resulted in acquittal based on benefit of doubt.

While agreeing that a person could not be denied public employment only on the ground of pending petty criminal case or acquittal in such a case, the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain opined that the suitability of an individual had to be examined considering overall facts and circumstances of each case.

Rajasthan HC Permits Medical Care To Asaram In Jail Granted In Earlier Orders; Rejects Plea For Temperature-Controlled Ward, Pvt Ambulance

Title: Asharam v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 237

Rajasthan High Court has directed that all the facilities, accommodations, permissions and medical arrangements that were made available to the rape convict, Asaram, by the earlier orders of high court and Supreme Court, shall continue to remain operative in the same manner, after his appeal against conviction was dismissed by court.

Asaram had moved the high court seeking restoration of certain facilities and accommodations which had earlier been extended to him pursuant to orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court, having regard to his age and medical condition so also for seeking some additional facilities. He claimed that after completion of criminal appeal, wherein high court had last month upheld his conviction and life sentence for sexually harassing and raping a minor in his Jodhpur Ashram in 2013, the facilities had been withdrawn.

The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit referred to various orders of the high court and Supreme Court and noted that the facilities and accommodations extended to petitioner were not founded upon considerations of any status or privilege, but upon judicial assessment of his age, medical condition and requirements of treatment on the basis of material placed before the Courts from time to time.

'Gross Abuse Of Law': Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Revenue Board's Order Directing Impleadment Of Party In Absence Of Prayer

Title: Virendra Singh v Bhupendra Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 238

Rajasthan High Court expressed astonishment over the ex-parte order passed by the Board of Revenue, directing trial court to implead the concerned party without there being any prayer for the same terming it “gross abuse of the process of law” and “violative of judicial propriety”.

While setting aside and remanding the order to the Board of Revenue, the bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit, without commenting anything on the modus operandi of the concerned bench, directed the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, to assign the matter to some other bench.

"This Court is of considered opinion that a grave error of law has been committed by learned Board of Revenue while passing impugned order. The manner in which impugned order has been passed, whereby revision petition has been allowed at the admission stage and an order is set aside without issuing notice to opposite / affected party, without granting any opportunity of hearing that too, in a revision petition filed by a person who is not a party to proceedings and without first deciding application for condonation of delay, is against settled and basic tenates of law. It is also quite astonishing to note that order impugned has been passed beyond the prayer made in revision petition and straightaway directions were issued to learned Trial Court to implead Respondent No. 1 as party respondent despite there being no such impleadment application pending before learned Trial Court. This Court is of considered opinion that order impugned amounts to a gross abuse of process of law".

'Premature': Rajasthan High Court Rejects Estranged Wife's Plea For Inclusion As Nominee In Family Pension During Lifetime Of Husband

Title: Smt. Santosh Pareek v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 239

Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition filed by an estranged wife seeking inclusion of her name as a nominee in the pension payment order (PPO) of her husband, after noting that since the husband was still alive and thus her petition was premature.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that the petitioner had no right to claim inclusion of her name in the PPO as nominee to receive family pension after her husband's death, till the time her husband was alive.

"The petitioner has no right to claim that her name be included in the PPO as nominee so that she may receive family pension after the death of respondent No. 5. The writ petition has been filed prematurely and the same is not maintainable, so long as respondent No.5 is alive. As and when the issue regarding family pension arises, petitioner may raise her claim and file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, but not at this stage when respondent No. 5 is alive, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed".

'No Mala Fides Shown In Order': Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Quash Clerk's Transfer From Defence Canteen Stores Dept To Head Office

Title: Chhatrapal Singh Gour v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 240

While rejecting petition challenging the transfer, Rajasthan High Court held that any Lower Division Clerk (LDC) posted in the Canteen Stores Department (CSD), Ministry of Defence, (stores) did not mean that such person had any right to not be considered for posting at the back-end office or the administrative wing of the said store.

The division bench of Justice Uma Shanker Vyas and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain further observed that the Transfer Policy of Group C employees dated October 4, 2011, was just a guideline that could not be enforced against the State by invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

"petitioner was transferred on administrative ground, and administrative ground is the choice of the employer to relocate any employee to fulfil organizational needs, manage functional requirements, or resolve any conflict relating to the workplace. Any transfer on administrative ground is not an arbitrary decision and the same can only be challenged if mala fide is proved. However, in the absence of mala fide and vindictiveness, the Court cannot interfere with an order of transfer, which has been issued purely on administrative needs and exigencies...When a transfer order is an administrative order and the petitioner has failed to prove mala fide, in particular malice in fact or malice in law, then he is not entitled to any relief under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error while dismissing the O.A"

31 Yrs On Rajasthan HC Grants Disability Pension To Ex-Sepoy; Says Army Didn't Conduct Medical Exam Or Disclose Disease In Discharge Order

Title: Ex Sepoy Om Prakash v the Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 241

The Rajasthan High Court, while granting relief to an Ex-Sepoy after 31 years of his discharge in 1995 owing to a neurological disease that he developed during services, noted that no medical exam was conducted prior to his discharge and was his medical history/disease was "deliberately" not disclosed in the veteran's discharge order.

He was denied the benefit of disability/invalid pension under Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (“1961 Regulations”).

The division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Ravi Chirania observed that before his discharge, no Release Medical Board (RMB) was conducted, neither the medical history was filled in his discharge order. It was opined that such conduct clearly indicated malice and intention to deliberately conceal the medical reason behind his discharge.

"It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that, before issuance of the discharge order dated 01.06.1995, petitioner was not subjected to RMB, and respondents have miserably failed to furnish any explanation or justified reason for non-conducting of medical examination of petitioner through RMB prior to his discharge, more particularly when the petitioner had remained hospitalized on two previous occasions on account of suffering from the disease, RNP (Rt), and furthermore, he was admitted in the hospital a day before of his discharge from service.”

POCSO Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Merely Because Minor Victim Refuses To Continue Case: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 242

The Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of the trial court that accepted the negative final report submitted by the police based on the consent given by the minor prosecutrix to the effect that she did not want to proceed with the proceedings against the accused persons.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that prosecution of the accused persons under POCSO could not be quashed merely on the ground that the prosecutrix had at a later stage agreed not to continue the proceedings.

“When an offence is made out against the accused irrespective of the fact that whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not, then certainly, the prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the ground that at a later stage the prosecutrix has agreed not to continue with the proceedings against the accused persons. Once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stage.”

Deceased Victim's Legal Heirs Fall Under Ambit Of Section 2(wa) CrPC, Entitled To Continue Appeal Against Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Smt. Shimla Sharma & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 243

Rajasthan High Court has held that legal representatives/heirs of the victim fall under the ambit of the term “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, and thus have the right to continue prosecution against the accused in the event of the victim's death.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further observed that while many amendments were made in favour of the victim, giving them right to file appeal under section 372, CrCP against acquittal or conviction for lesser offence, legislature had forgotten to amend the proviso to Section 394, CrPC that dealt with abatement of appeals.

It said that Section 2(wa) CrPC defines 'victim' in plain and simple language as a 'person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged...'. The court said that it was clear that Section 2(wa) "thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term 'victim' and not a narrow or restricted meaning".

Can A Fresh Cheque Bounce Complaint Be Filed After Withdrawal Of A Premature Complaint? Rajasthan High Court Answers

Title: M/s Victory Flour Mills v Smt. Sneh Lal Goyal & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 244

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act on the ground that the complaint filed in 2016 was time barred and filed without any application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 244]

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if an earlier complaint that was found to be premature, was withdrawn by the complainant, the subsequent complaint could not be treated as time barred.

The Court further observed that since the original complaint was filed in 2016, and the present quashing petition was filed at the fag end of the trial, after recording of evidence of both the sides, it could not be entertained.

Conviction Not Mandatory To Open History Sheet Against 'Habitual Offender' Under Police Rules: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Iqbal Khan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 245

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a prior conviction is not a mandatory prerequisite for opening or reopening a history sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is habitually addicted to crime. 

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana clarified that the expression "habitual offender" under the Police Rules cannot be imported from the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, which requires three convictions, as the Rules themselves permit opening a history sheet even against a person who has not been convicted.

“Rule 4.4(3)(b) does not presuppose any conviction, rather, it incorporates a specific stipulation that conviction is not mandatory. In that event, the definition of 'habitual offender' as provided under the Act of 1953 which presupposes three convictions, definitely cannot be applied to the said rule.”

Widowed Jethani Living Separately Unlikely To Benefit From Alleged Dowry: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Case

Title: Smt. Indra Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 246

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC against a woman's sister-in-law (jethani), holding that the latter being a widow and living separately from the in-laws family was unlikely to benefit from the alleged dowry or to harass the complainant (woman).

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the sister-in-law (petitioner) had nothing to gain from the cash or articles of dowry that allegedly had to be given to the complainant's husband and parents-in-law.

The Court held that ordinarily, in matrimonial disputes, the harassment was subjected by the husband or parents-in-law.

“The petitioner, being sister-in-law of the complainant i.e. Jethani, has no concern whatsoever, with the domestic affairs of the complainant and her husband. She would not benefit from any demand of dowry, if any, made by the husband or in-laws with the complainant who is sister-in-law (Devrani) of the petitioner.”

Can Bail Granted for Bailable Offences Be Cancelled If Graver Non‑bailable Offences Are Later Added: Rajasthan High Court Decides

Title: Arun Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 247

The Rajasthan High Court has held that benefit of bail granted to an accused under bailable offences cannot continue and stands cancelled on addition of a graver, non-bailable offence.

After making references to certain Supreme Court decisions including Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi & Anr. and Pradeep Ram vs. the State of Jharkhand & Anr., the Court held that,

“…benefit of bail granted to the accused for bailable offences cannot be allowed to continue and the same is liable to be cancelled on addition of graver/non-bailable offence.”

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Husband's Plea Seeking Wife's Narco, Polygraph & DNA Tests To Rebut Impotency Allegations

Title: B v N

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 248

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the rejection of a husband's application seeking joint medical examination of himself and his wife, to refute the allegations of physical incapacity and impotency levelled by the wife in her divorce petition. 

The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that firstly, the application was filed at a belated stage of the proceedings, and secondly, the petitioner failed to establish the relevance or necessity of the Narco Test, Polygraph test, DNA Test, etc. to the issue of alleged sexual incapacity or impotence.

The Court further observed that since the allegation were levelled by the respondent-wife, the burden of proof lied upon her. The Court could not be expected to collect evidence on behalf of a litigant.

Habeas Corpus Can't Be Granted Despite Non-Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest After Judicial Remand: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rohit Joshi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 249

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be maintained to challenge an arrest on the ground that the arrestee was not communicated the grounds of arrest, once judicial remand orders have been passed, even though such non-compliance amounts to a violation of the mandatory constitutional and statutory safeguards under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 

A Division Bench of Justice Uma Shanker Vyas and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by the son of former Rajasthan minister Dr. Mahesh Joshi, who alleged that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had failed to communicate the grounds of arrest to the detenue or his family at the time of his arrest in a corruption case.

While finding that there was non-compliance with the mandatory requirements governing arrest, the Court held that it could not grant habeas corpus relief because the detenue was already in judicial custody pursuant to remand orders.

Rajasthan High Court Orders Tehsildar To Personally Pay ₹2 Lakh Compensation For 53-Day Illegal Detention, Directs Inquiry

Title: Smt. Bhanwari Devi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 250

The Rajasthan High Court came down heavily upon the State for illegal detention of a HIV+ person for 53 days after the order of his release was passed and imposed a personal cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on the concerned erring Tehsildar.

Terming the act as “diabolical”, the division bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that the incident was not merely administrative failure but a “callous indifference to human suffering that shocks the conscience of this Court.”

“When the State through the obstinacy of a single functionary subjects a sick, impoverished man to fifty-three days of illegal confinement while his ailing wife pleads in vain at the gates of officialdom, it betrays the foundational promise of the Constitution in the most egregious manner.”

The Court rejected the argument on behalf of the Tehsildar pleading unawareness about the order of release, and opined that it was wholly incongruous to suggest that an appellant forum could pass an order suspending sentence, without the order reaching the very office charged with execution of that sentence.

“An officer who continues to confine a person in the face of a valid suspension order, repeated personal requests for release, institution of a writ petition in the High Court, and his own admitted knowledge of the order, cannot be heard to say that his misconduct was innocent or accidental. The element of wilfulness elevates the gravity of the wrong and must be reflected in the quantum of compensation.”

Justice Administration Not Divorced From Human Dignity: Rajasthan High Court Suspends Life Convict's Sentence On Severe Medical Condition

Title: Kanaram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 251

Rajasthan High Court suspended life-sentence and granted bail to a murder convict, suffering from the severe ailment of Guillain-Barre Syndrome. It held that humanitarian consideration assumed greater significance when the ailment was so severe that confinement might deprive the appellant of comfort, emotional support and constant care which only family could provide. 

The division bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that even though medical ailments alone did not automatically entitle a convict for suspension of sentence, constitutional court could not remain oblivious to the humanitarian dimension of criminal justice.

“The administration of justice is not divorced from considerations of human dignity. Where the material demonstrates that a convict is afflicted with a progressive neurological disorder which substantially diminishes his physical capacities and renders him dependent upon continuous care and assistance, the Court is required to balance the demands of criminal justice with the constitutional obligation to preserve human dignity.”

Administrative Decisions Must Be Tested On Legality, Not Political Identity Of Person Who Raised Issue: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Satyanarayan Singh Rajpurohit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 252

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the validity of an administrative decision must be tested on the touchstone of the applicable statutory framework and the procedure followed, and not on the political identity of the person who brought the issue to the notice of the authorities.

Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that the mere fact that a representation was made by a local leader of the ruling party does not, by itself, render the resultant administrative decision illegal, arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides.

The Court made the observation while dismissing a plea challenging the State Government's notification creating the new revenue village of 'Khichan Vistar' in Phalodi district.

Magistrate Can't Reject Negative Final Report Solely Based On Protest Petition: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Cognizance In Rape Case

Title: Manisha Jain v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 253

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot reject a negative final report and take cognizance of offences solely on the basis of the averments made in a protest petition, without meaningfully considering the material collected during investigation and recording reasons for disagreeing with the investigating officer's conclusions.

Holding that the cognizance order suffered from non-application of mind, Justice Farjand Ali quashed the proceedings against two accused in a rape case after accepting the police's negative final report.

The Court observed that while departing from the conclusion of the investigating agency, the order must disclose due and meaningful consideration of the material collected during investigation. It opined that judicial discretion could not be exercised in an unstructured or mechanical manner.

National Interest Prevail Over Individual Convenience: Rajasthan High Court Upholds IAF Officer's Transfer Despite Parents' Medical Hardship

Title: Union of India & Ors. v Sqn. Ldr. Deepak Sandhu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 254

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the transfer of a Squadron Leader, Indian Air Force who had challenged the same owing to critical medical condition of his parents. 

The Court opined that humane considerations, towards the compassionate circumstances, alone could not override the paramount considerations of organizational discipline, operational preparedness, and service requirements of Armed Forces.

“Though compassionate circumstances may certainly constitute a relevant factor for consideration while examining the legality or fairness of a transfer order, such considerations cannot be treated as a sine qua non for judicial interference, particularly in matters concerning the Armed Forces where national interest, strategic deployment and administrative exigencies must necessarily receive primacy over individual convenience.”

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati further opined that Policy for Posting of Officer did not possess any binding statutory force that created any enforceable legal mandate. Rather, it was merely administrative guideline intended at regulating internal governance and operational management.

Mere Imposition Of Fine Under Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance Not 'Moral Turpitude' To Deny Appointment: High Court

Title: Virendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 255

The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that imposition of fine for an offence under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) does not amount to moral turpitude based on which a candidate could be denying public employment. 

The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur held that where a candidate was convicted, decision to deny public employment could not be taken mechanically. Rather, the appointing authority is obligated to examine such cases to see whether the offences for which the candidate was convicted involved moral turpitude or violence.

Rajasthan High Court Orders 46 Years' Disability Pension Arrears To Ex-Air Force Corporal, Says Benefit Can't Be Denied Due To State Inaction

Title: Ratti Ram v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 256

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to an Ex-Corporal of the Indian Air Force whose disability pension was discontinued in 1980 owing to pending re-assessment of his disability. 

Even after the disability was assessed to be in continuation, the Armed Forces Tribunal directed payment of arrears only since 2019, instead of calculating it from the date of discontinuity.

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Nupur Bhati highlighted that no reason was assigned by the Tribunal to resume the disability pension from a random date in 2019.

“The petitioner, an ex-serviceman now aged 79 years, has been suffering from Bronchial Asthma since his days of active service to the nation. He has been deprived of his rightful disability pension for over four decades through no fault of his own. The purpose of disability pension is to provide sustenance and recognition to those who have suffered in the course of serving the nation. Any interpretation that defeats this purpose must be eschewed.”

Interim Orders Shouldn't Inflict Disproportionate Hardship: Rajasthan High Court Allows Relocated Liquor Vend To Operate Pending Dispute

Title: Devendra Gehlot v Vaibhav Singh Bhati & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 257

The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that interim orders are meant to preserve equities between parties and should not inflict disproportionate hardship pending adjudication of a dispute.

Making the observation, a Division Bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal permitted a liquor shop licensee to continue operating from a relocated site approved by the Excise Department, noting that the relocation was within the same excise cluster and that the subsistence of an ad-interim stay was causing recurring financial prejudice to the licensee.

“…interim orders are intended to preserve equities between the parties and should not, unless compelling circumstances so warrant, inflict disproportionate hardship upon one side pending adjudication of the substantive dispute. At the same time, the Court is equally mindful that any interim arrangement fashioned by an appellate forum should not have the effect of rendering the pending proceedings before the learned Single Judge infructuous or prejudging the issues involved therein.”

Ward Delimitation Must Be Based On Population, Not Number Of Voters: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Amrita Meena v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 258

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a challenge against the formation of wards in the upcoming elections of Municipal Body, opining that the determining factor for formation of wards is not the number of voters but population.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta opined that the entire writ was misleading and based on an erroneous presumption that wards were determined based on the number of voters.

The Court referred to Section 9 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, and highlighted that the provision which laid down mechanism for division of Municipality into wards, did not use the word “voters” but “population”.

Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To Cyber Fraud Accused Subject To Disclosure Of Crypto Holdings, Digital Wallets

Title: Maksood & Ors. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 259

While granting bail in a cyber-fraud case, Rajasthan High Court prohibited the applicants from obtaining/using any new SIM, phone; opening new bank account; or creating any social medial account, domain name or website without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer.

The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania further directed the accused persons against using any VPN, TOR Browser, Proxy Server or any other form of anonymous network or identity masking technology.

Apart from the above, the Court also sought an affidavit from the accused persons, with details that included,

• Movable and immovable assets, including land, vehicles, bank accounts, digital wallets, Cyptocurrency holdings, allegedly used in commission of offence;
• All electronic devices in their possession including hard disks and pen drives with their IMEI numbers;
• All social medial accounts, email accounts, domain registrations, websites and online platforms operated or used by the accused persons.

Rajasthan High Court Criticizes State For Forming Panel To Examine Land Dispute Despite Final Adjudication By Revenue Court In 1978

Title: M/s Sanskar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 260

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of a single judge that relied upon the report of a fact-finding Commission that was constituted by the State Government despite the fact that the concerned matter had already attained finality in 1978, opining such reliance to be erroneous.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bipin Gupta further slammed the government for the act of constituting the concerned commission, and observed that once the concerned matter was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, the commission had no capacity to examine the case.

“…we do not find as to under what capacity, the Beri Commission was examining the case of State of Rajasthan (supra), which stood already dismissed by the Board of Revenue. Neither the Beri Commission was formed by any direction of the High Court, nor it could have examined a judgment passed by the Board of Revenue where the application of the State had been rejected on the ground of limitation…Beri Commission has acted as an adjudicating authority without there being any such direction issued by any Court.”

SARFAESI Act | Rajasthan High Court Orders Police To Restore Bank's Possession Of Mortgaged Property Allegedly Reoccupied By Borrowers

Title: Roha Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 261

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the local Police to immediately take appropriate steps to restore possession of a mortgaged property to a bank, after it alleged that the borrowers had forcibly reoccupied the property despite it having been taken over under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002.

Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that failure to restore possession in such circumstances would amount to a "clear case of defiance of law" and directed the police to act within 15 days.

“…if petitioner – bank is not allowed to take possession of said property, it will amount to clear case of defiance of law and, therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara and SHO, Kotdi, District Bhilwara are under an obligation to act in consonance with the provisions of law for restoring the possession of petitioner given that the petitioner has already approached them.”

Rajasthan High Court Orders Release Of Ex-Serviceman's Licensed Rifle, Says Continued Seizure May Affect Livelihood

Title: Jaipal Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 262

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the release of a licensed 12-bore rifle to the Ex-servicemen-petitioner, opining that since the petitioner was now a security guard, the rifle constituted an important tool connected with his source of livelihood.

Depriving him of its custody would adversely impact his ability to effectively discharge his professional responsibilities, it added.

“Merely lodging of one FIR cannot by itself constitute a valid ground to presume that petitioner will indulge in any criminal activity involving the use of rifle in question, more particularly, when no other criminal antecedent has been reported against the revisionist.”

The Court further held that since the trial would take considerable time, there was a possibility of the rifle suffering deterioration. It was held that valuable property shall not ordinarily be permitted to remain in police custody for an indefinite period, especially when proper documentation and identification particulars of the article could be safeguarded as evidence.

S.311 CrPC Meant To Elicit Truth, Not Favour Either Side: Rajasthan High Court Allows Summoning Of Prosecutrix's School Record In POCSO Case

Title: C v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 263

While allowing an application under Section 311 CrPC at the "fag end" of a POCSO trial, the Rajasthan High Court held that the purpose of the provision is not to favour or disfavour the prosecution or the accused, but to naturally unravel the truth to exercise just decision in a case. 

Section 311 CrPC empowered the courts to summon, recall, or re-examine any witness or any material, at any stage of an inquiry or trial.

After hearing the contentions, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to hold that, “when there is reasonable grounds for doubt regarding age determination, the same is required to be determined on the basis of date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or the equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available.”

Rajasthan High Court Fines State ₹15,000 For Denying Fifth-Pay Commission Benefits To Ex-Air Force Personnel Despite SC Order

Title: Union of India & Ors. v No. 610812A Ex MWO Prabhu Singh Shekhawat

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 264

Rajasthan High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 15,000 on the State for denying the benefits of the 5th Central Pay Commission to an ex-air force personnel, and opined that the benefits of revised pay scales arising from the 5th Central Pay Commission had to be given effect from January 1, 1996 and not October 10, 1997.

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati further opined that despite having knowledge of a Supreme Court decision (Jai Narayan Jakhar v. Union of India 2008) that dealt with similar facts and reached the same conclusion, State's conduct of denying similar treatment to the respondent amount to discriminatory treatment and gross arbitrariness.

The Court referred to the report of Ministry of Defence, Raksha Mantri's Committee of Experts, published in 2015, in which Chapter II provided that revised pay scales owing to the 5th pay commission that got implemented on October 10, 1997, had to be given effect from January 1, 1996.

Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Void MLA's Election Over Alleged Defects In Asset Disclosure But Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs For Evading Summons

Title: Purshottam Lal v Ritu Banawat & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 265

The Rajasthan High Court has refused to set aside the election of Bayana MLA Ritu Banawat in the 2023 Assembly elections over alleged defects in her asset disclosure affidavit filed with the nomination papers, holding that only defects of a substantial character that materially affect the election can warrant invalidation of the electoral mandate.

Justice Sudesh Bansal however imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the MLA for evading service of summons and delaying the proceedings.

“Respondent No.1 is an elected Member of Legislative Assembly in General State Assembly Election, 2023 and holds a constitutional position so also can be assumed to be a public figure in her Constituency Bayana, hence, she is not expected to play the game of hide and seek, to evade Court summons and thereby cannot be permitted to dishonor and disregard, the process of law because same would yield bad precedent. Such conduct of respondent No.1 deserves to be deprecated and suitable cost is liable to be imposed upon her,” the bench said.