Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 215 to 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 265

NOMINAL INDEX

Pramod Jain v the Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 215

Yasmeen Bee & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 216

Feliram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 217

Dhananjay Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 218

Mamta Kumari v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 219

Principle Secretary & Ors. v Dalbir Singh; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 220

M/s Shalimar Electrical v M/s Kanchan India Limited; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 221

Gangasahay & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 222

Ranjeet Raigar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 223

State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Nava & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 224

Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 225

Puran Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 226

United India Insurance Co. v Shanti Devi & Ors., and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 227

Pramila v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 228

Lal Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 229

Shri Shanti Lal Dholi v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 230

Govind Ram Yadav & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 231

Nitin Kumar Jhalani & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 232

Satyapal Sharma & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 233

Sumann Mundhara v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 234

Sandeep Kumar Arora v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 235

Sarita Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 236

Asharam v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 237

Virendra Singh v Bhupendra Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 238

Smt. Santosh Pareek v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 239

Chhatrapal Singh Gour v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 240

Ex Sepoy Om Prakash v the Union of India & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 241

Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 242

Smt. Shimla Sharma & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 243

Victory Flour Mills v Smt. Sneh Lal Goyal & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 244

Iqbal Khan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 245

Smt. Indra Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 246

Arun Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 247

B v N; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 248

Rohit Joshi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 249

Smt. Bhanwari Devi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 250

Kanaram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 251

Satyanarayan Singh Rajpurohit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 252

Manisha Jain v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 253

Union of India & Ors. v Sqn. Ldr. Deepak Sandhu; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 254

Virendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 255

Ratti Ram v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 256

Devendra Gehlot v Vaibhav Singh Bhati & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 257

Amrita Meena v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 258

Maksood & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 259

M/s Sanskar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 260

Roha Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 261

Jaipal Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 262

C v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 263

Union of India & Ors. v No. 610812A Ex MWO Prabhu Singh Shekhawat; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 264

Purshottam Lal v Ritu Banawat & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 265

Judgments of the Month

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.