[Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 408 – 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 466]Nominal IndexMukhya Vyavasthapak, Banswara Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited v Pradeep Singh Rathore & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 408Yar Mohammad v Khudabaksh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 409Ram Pal Meena v Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 410Dalbeer Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors;...
[Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 408 – 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 466]
Nominal Index
Mukhya Vyavasthapak, Banswara Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited v Pradeep Singh Rathore & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 408
Yar Mohammad v Khudabaksh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 409
Ram Pal Meena v Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 410
Dalbeer Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 411
Rashtriya Loktanrik Party v State Election Commission, Rajasthan, and Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 412
Balavant Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 413
Mahesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 414
Muslim Khan v National Investigation Agency, and other connected appeals; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 415
Babita & Anr. v Shankar Singh & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 416
Bheru Lal v Union of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 417
Bajrang Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 418
R v S; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 419
Sonu Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 420
Union of India & Ors. v Sunil Kumar, and other connected appeals; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 421
Asharam alias Ashumal v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 422
Shakuntala Devi Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 423
Rahul Agrawal v UCO Bank; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 424
Iftkharuddin Son Of Jamaluddin & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 425
A.L.D Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v Baljeet Singh, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 426
Dr. Nitin Jhalani v Director, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Jaipur, and ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 427
Govind v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 428
Santosh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 429
L v B; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 430
V v Through Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RALSA) & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 431
Kashif Khan & Ors. v the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 432
Avinash Bhatnagar v the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 433
Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan & ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 434
HK Meena v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected matter; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 435
Ramniwas v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 436
Monu Mohammed & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 437
Santosh Bansal v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 438
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Rupendra Kumar Sharma; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 439
Chander Bhushan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.;2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 440
Vivek Sharma v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 441
S v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 442
LRs. Of Late Shri Chandra Narayan Mathur v the State of Rajasthan & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 443
Pooja Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 444
Vinod Agarwal v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 445
Sunil Kumar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 446
Sanjay alias Sethi v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 447
L v G; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 448
Smt. Shivangi Khandelwal v State of Rajasthan & Anr; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 449
H v M; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 450
Jai Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 451
Meghraj Saini v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 452
Shrawan Nath v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 453
Kanti Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 454
Virat Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 455
Surendra Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 456
Naveen v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 457
Suman Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 458
Gangaram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 459
Bhanwar Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 460
Ramniwas v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 461
Suo Motu v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 462
Manglesh Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 463
Santosh Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 464
Naresh Prajapat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 465
Asharam alias Ashumal v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 466
Order/Judgments of the Month
Title: Mukhya Vyavasthapak, Banswara Kray Vikray Sahakari Samiti Limited v Pradeep Singh Rathore & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 408
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the quashing of an order that reduced pay-scale of employees without affording opportunity of hearing, irrespective of the fact that the initial appointments of the concerned employees against regular posts were irregular and reduction of their pay scale was a consequence of restoring their position prior to such irregularity.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing appeals filed against the order of a single judge that had set aside the order passed by the appellant reducing the regular pay-scale of the respondents.
During an audit conducted in 2018, it was revealed that the appointments of respondents against regular posts were irregular. Post this objection raised in the audit, the appellant withdrew the regular pay scale of the respondents and directed them to work on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 12,000 per month. This was challenged before the Court.
Title : Yar Mohammad v Khudabaksh & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 409
While hearing a Motor Accident Claim case, considering that the claimant was a minor, Rajasthan High Court directed the insurance company of the offending vehicle to satisfy the award granted in favour of the claimant, despite the vehicle's owner being in breach of the insurance policy, with a liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali made a reference to Supreme Court cases, to hold that the principle of “pay and recover” was recognized in cases where despite a breach of the policy conditions by the insured, the insurer was directed to pay to the claimant at the first instance, without fastening the ultimate liability on the insurer, and then recover it from the defaulter.
At the same time, the Court observed that established breach relating to the use of the vehicle without a permit authorising carriage of passengers had a direct bearing on the contractual liability of the insurance company.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court case in Anu Bhanvara & Ors. v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. in which in case of gratuitous passengers, who were young children travelling in goods vehicle, Supreme Court directed insurance company to satisfy the award in the first instance and granted liberty to recover the same from the vehicle's owner and driver.
Title : Ram Pal Meena v Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 410
The Rajasthan High Court has held that there is no legally sustainable difference between 'honourable acquittal' and 'acquittal' for the purpose of granting service benefits to a suspended employee.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma set aside the orders of the employer-LIC (respondent) as per which the petitioner was denied the service benefits for his time when he was put under suspension owing to being implicated in a criminal case in which he was acquitted, on the ground that his acquittal was not “honourable”.
The Court observed that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Rules, 1960 (the “Rules”) did not make any distinction between the honourable acquittal and acquittal for any other reason, and in any event, the presumption of innocence of the employee stood restored upon his acquittal.
Employee Terminated After Acquittal Entitled To Back Wages Till Reinstatement: Rajasthan High Court
Title : Dalbeer Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 411
The Rajasthan High Court has held that when an employee is terminated after being acquitted in a criminal case, s/he would be entitled to back wages for the period between such termination and reinstatement.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K Agarwal and Justice Inderjeet Singh observed that even though subsequent acquittal did not retrospectively erase legal consequences of earlier conviction, a termination effected after acquittal could not attract this principle.
Title: Rashtriya Loktanrik Party v State Election Commission, Rajasthan, and Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 412
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to interfere with the administrative issue concerning the appointment of a Superintendent of Police (SP), Nagaur, from the Rajasthan Police Service (RPS) cadre instead of the Indian Police Service (IPS) cadre.
A division bench comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Rashtriya Loktantrik Party, challenging the appointment of an RPS officer as SP, Nagaur, instead of an officer from the IPS cadre. The petition sought directions to the State Election Commission, Rajasthan, to consider and decide a fresh representation made by the party regarding the issue.
The petitioner's case was that in view of the upcoming municipal and panchayat elections, appointment of a regular SP was required, as assigning the charge to an Additional SP belonging to the State cadre could potentially affect the integrity of the electoral process.
Title : Balavant Singh v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 413
The Rajasthan High Court has held that taunts for not having a male child or threats of marrying another woman, do not amount to instigation or intentional aid, to constitute the prima facie material to attract the offence of abatement of suicide under Section 108, BNS.
The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit was hearing a bail application of a husband, whose wife had committed suicide, and he, along with his parents was implicated for the offence of abetement to suicide, based on a complaint filed by the father of the deceased.
Title : Mahesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 414
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a couple, facing criminal charges, to travel abroad to be with their son, who is scheduled to undergo surgery in the United States, holding that hospitalisation could not be regarded as a prerequisite for a parent to attend to an ailing child.
Justice Farjand Ali further held that the concern and anxiety of parents for their child's well-being could not be measured by the nature of medical advice or made dependent upon the child's admission in a hospital.
The Court also observed that pendency of an investigation, by itself, could not be treated as an absolute impediment to an accused person's temporary foreign travel where the investigation could proceed independently.
Title : Muslim Khan v National Investigation Agency, and other connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 415
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the denial of bail to five accused in the 2022 beheading case of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain rejected the appeals filed against the orders of the special NIA Court, whereby the bail applications of the appellants were dismissed.
It observed that the terror created by the offence was not merely an assault on physical body, but it struck the psychological sovereignty of the country since its object was not to commit an offence but to assassinate peace by replacing Rule of Law with Rule of Fear.
“The gavel strikes, not merely to conclude a hearing, but to echo the unyielding resolve of a sovereign Republic…The preambles of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are not mere statutory introductions; they are the legislative declarations of a State fighting for its self-preservation…The law must possess th teeth to bite those who attempt to devour the nation's harmony.”
Title : Babita & Anr. v Shankar Singh & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 416
The Rajasthan High Court has held that employment-related allowances forming part of a deceased employee's regular earnings must be taken into account while assessing his income for computation of motor accident compensation, and cannot be excluded merely because they are described as allowances.
The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that the assessment of income cannot be confined to the basic salary reflected in a salary certificate where the evidence establishes that the employee was regularly receiving additional monetary benefits as part of his service conditions.
The Court accordingly included the deceased's ₹2,000 monthly telephone and petrol allowances while assessing his monthly income at ₹6,800, and enhanced the compensation from ₹6,15,500 to ₹13,18,650.
Title : Bheru Lal v Union of India
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 417
While discharging a man from an NDPS case, the Rajasthan High Court observed that a bare assertion that he had “cooperated” with persons allegedly involved in drug trafficking, without disclosing the nature, manner or occasion of such cooperation, could not by itself attract Section 29 of the NDPS Act, which deals with abetment and criminal conspiracy.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that Section 29 was not attracted merely on account of an association, relationship or acquaintance with a person allegedly involved in an NDPS offence. The prosecution must place material indicating, at least prima facie, the nature of the alleged assistance, the act constituting such assistance, or circumstances from which participation in a criminal conspiracy could reasonably be inferred.
The Court further observed that the allegation that the petitioner had “cooperated” with the principal accused was conspicuously bereft of particulars, as the prosecution had not attributed any specific transaction, date, place, quantity, vehicle, financial dealing, communication or other overt act to him.
Title : Bajrang Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 418
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a plea under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents cannot be rejected by pre-judging their contents or evidentiary value, particularly where the documents have a reasonable nexus with a material issue in the trial.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that while the power under Section 91 CrPC must be exercised with due circumspection, it cannot be construed so restrictively as to defeat the provision's purpose. At the stage of deciding whether a document should be produced, the Court is required to examine whether it has a reasonable and discernible connection with a material fact, rather than assess its ultimate evidentiary worth.
The Court further held that where a document is capable of materially assisting the defence and its production is warranted in the facts of the case, such an opportunity cannot be denied on the basis of conjecture or assumption regarding what the document may or may not contain.
Title : R v S
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 419
Rajasthan High Court denied granting custody of a 7 year old child to his father, in the background of the fact that the boy was living with his maternal grandparents since his birth, owing to which it was observed that the sudden and abrupt shift would definitely result in mental disturbance which won't be in the child's interest.
At the same time, the division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Sangeeta Sharma allowed visitation and temporary custody rights to the respondent-father in a staged manner, while observing that the father had every right to create an atmosphere such that later, the child could be influenced to shift the custody.
“Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the child is not willing to go with the father even for temporary custody which cannot be accepted. At the initial stage, the child may not go abruptly, but during the course of development of family bonding, the child may show the inclination to join the father. This can only happen when an atmosphere is created to develop the bonding between the father and the son.”
Title : Sonu Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 420
While hearing a bail application in a POCSO case, Rajasthan High Court observed that despite there being detailed guidelines, the manner of service regarding the intimation of bail application to the parents/guardians of the victim, continued to be improper, reflecting "lethargic attitude" of the authorities.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah opined that due to non-sending of information to the parents/guardians immediately after filing of the bail application or due to improper service, there was a delay in adjudication of such bail application which affected the personal liberty of the accused.
The Court thus directed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan; Principle Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs, and the Member Secretary, RSLA, to take note of the situation, and ensure issuance of guidelines by all the police stations, public prosecutors, and other stakeholders throughout Rajasthan to follow the prescribed guidelines.
Title : Union of India & Ors. v Sunil Kumar, and other connected appeals
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 421
The Rajasthan High Court has held that it has the territorial jurisdiction in matters relating to a recruitment process which was initiated for positions across India, and was conducted in various stages across the country, if substantive stages were also conducted in Rajasthan.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal and Justice Inderjeet Singh further opined that apart from the fact that a part of the cause of action arose in Rajasthan, the territorial jurisdiction was also affirmed by the fact that Rajasthan High Court was the convenient and appropriate forum for the petitioners, being residents here.
“…the petitioners are Rajasthan based unemployed youths, who participated in the recruitment process from Rajasthan and whose substantive recruitment stages were also conducted in Rajasthan and requiring them to pursue their constitutional remedy before a distant High Court would cause avoidable hardship and expense.”
Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Comply With Asaram's 20-Day Parole Order
Title : Asharam alias Ashumal v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 422
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to comply with its order dated August 3 by which rape-convict, Asaram, was granted a 20-day parole, opining that rejection of his application for emergent parole by the Gujarat High Court had no adverse consequences on State's obligations to comply with the order of this Court.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit was hearing an application seeking directions to the State to comply with the order that granted parole to the convict.
Title : Shakuntala Devi Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 423
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the State government, for failing to correct the name of an employee in the service records owing to their "impersonal and irresponsible" approach, and pushing her towards unnecessary litigation.
“This Court cannot remain a mute spectator to such harassment. The Courts are already overburdened with genuine lis. If the State and its instrumentalities compel their own employees to approach the Court for such petty, genuine and admitted corrections, which could have been done at the administrative level within a week, it amounts to gross abuse of process and creation of unnecessary litigation.”
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that when the employee had written her correct name in the application form, and incorrect name in the service records was due to the State's clerical error, it was State's bounden duty as a Model Employer to correct it. Inaction in this regard was not merely a negligence but culpable inaction.
Title : Rahul Agrawal v UCO Bank
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 424
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the order by UCO Bank wherein the caregiver of a Thalassemia patient was transferred 1,000 kms away without reasonable consideration and through mechanical application of the transfer policy.
Remarking that the transfer order was "inhumane and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution", the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed:
"Transferring a care-giver of a person suffering from Thalassemia, who requires blood transfusion on every 15-20 days, to a place 1000 KMs away, where no such facility or family support is available, without any reasonable consideration, is not only arbitrary but also inhumane and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes right to health and right to live with dignity of both the disabled dependent and the petitioner".
Title : Iftkharuddin Son Of Jamaluddin & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 425
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the punishment of withholding 10% of the pension payable to three retired police officials for their lifetime, after finding them guilty of grave negligence in discharging their duties during a law-and-order situation that resulted in the death of a Sub-Inspector.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the disciplinary proceedings could continue after the officials' retirement since the charge-sheet had been served on them while they were still in service. The Court also found no error in the disciplinary authority's decision to impose the pension cut.
Title : A.L.D Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v Baljeet Singh, and other connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 426
The Rajasthan High Court has held that introduction of Repealing and Amendment Act 2025 that repealed Amendment Act of 2018 which brought into effect Section 148 in the Negotiable Instruments Act, did not affect the applicability of the provision.
Section 148 NI Act empowers an Appellate Court to order the appellant, convicted for offence of cheque dishonour, to deposit a minimum of 20% of the compensation awarded by the trial court during the pendency of the appeal.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman held that once incorporated into the principal legislation, the amendment formed an integral part of the same and continued to operate irrespective of the subsequent repeal of the amending legislation.
“It is a settled principle of statutory interpretation that an amendment once incorporated into the parent Act, the amendment becomes a part thereof and derives its force from the parent legislation. Consequently, repeal of the amending Act merely brings the amending enactment to an end as an independent legislative measure; it does not efface the amendments already incorporated into the parent Act.”
Title : Dr. Nitin Jhalani v Director, Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Jaipur, and ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 427
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a doctor's plea seeking extension of time to join as an Assistant Professor in General Surgery while pursuing his M.Ch. in Urology, holding that a government servant cannot retain lien on two substantive posts simultaneously.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that extension of joining time is meant to meet administrative exigencies or personal hardship and cannot be used to stall joining or hold multiple employments while pursuing higher studies.
The Court was hearing the plea of a doctor who already held the post of Medical Officer at SMS Hospital & Medical College, Jaipur and was granted leave to pursue his M.Ch. in Urology. During the course, he was selected as Assistant Professor in General Surgery at Government Medical College, Tonk, but sought a two-year extension to join the new post until completion of his M.Ch.
Probationer Can Be Transferred: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Condition Denying Relieving On Transfer
Title : Govind v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 428
The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that unless there is a prohibition in any statute for not transferring an employee from one place to another during his/her probation period, authorities could not put such a condition in the relevant transfer order, that being de hors the law.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma further observed that in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (“Rules”), there was no such prohibition that if a person was discharging his/her duties as a probationer trainee, he/she shall not be transferred.
Title : Santosh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 429
The Rajasthan High Court has granted third regular parole to a convict whose application was earlier rejected by the District Parole Advisory Committee on the ground of his unauthorised absence during a night inspection while he was lodged in an Open Air Camp, following which he was sent back to jail.
A division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma took into account the petitioner's prolonged custody, satisfactory conduct during his first and second regular paroles, timely surrender on both occasions, and favourable reports from the District Probation and Prison Welfare Officer and the Social Justice and Empowerment Department.
Title : L v B
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 430
Rajasthan High Court has held that persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes following Hindu traditions and customs will be governed by Hindu Marriage Act and thus cannot be relegated to customary courts when the parties themselves admit that they are following Hindu rites.
In doing so the court granted divorce to a couple belonging to Meena Community under the Hindu Marriage Act after noting that the parties were admittedly observing Hindu rites, customs and traditions and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rituals.
The division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Ravi Chirania quashed a Family Court order which had denied an application filed by the parties seeking divorce based on mutual consent on the ground that it was not established that the marriage was dissolved as per customs and usages of “Meena Community”.
Title : V v Through Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RALSA) & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 431
Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the District Legal Service Authority (DSLA) against a young Legal Aid Defence Counsel that terminated his services and passed stigmatic remarks about his services being negligent and unsatisfactory, to the extent of expunging the adverse remarks that were passed without any enquiry, while retaining the termination.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that petitioner-counsel was engaged on a contractual basis under the Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme (LADCS) which was discontinued with a direction to State Legal Services Authority to not renew any contracts. In this light, services of the petitioner could not be allowed to continue.
Title : Kashif Khan & Ors. v the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 432
The Rajasthan High Court has held that vacancies in public employments that arise on account of non-joining or subsequent resignations are considered fresh vacancies that are required to be filled by a new recruitment process and not by operating the reserve or waiting list prepared pursuant to the concerned selection process.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the candidates appearing in the reserve or waiting list of a particular recruitment process could not claim a right to appointment against such vacancies, merely due to their inclusion in the reserve/waiting list.
Title : Avinash Bhatnagar v the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 433
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a person accepts a lower post offered as compassionate appointment, s/he cannot subsequently claim appointment to a higher post.
The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta was dealing with a case where the petitioner had accepted compassionate appointment to the post in 2013 on which he also worked for 2 years, before filing the present petition in 2015 seeking appointment at a higher post.
Court opined, “it cannot be disputed that the relevant date for consideration of a claim for compassionate appointment depends upon the applicable rules and the law governing such appointment on date of death. However, in the present case, once the petitioner accepted the lower post offered to him without any demur and continued to work thereon for almost two years, he could not subsequently claim appointment to a higher post”.
Title : Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan & ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 434
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the termination of an employee who was dismissed from service for allegedly concealing a past conviction in a criminal case, holding that the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, protects against disqualification arising from the conviction under Section 12 of the Act.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that non-disclosure of a past conviction does not automatically warrant termination. It held that an employer must objectively consider the relevant circumstances, including the employee's age at the time, the nature and outcome of the criminal case, and whether the alleged non-disclosure materially affected the employee's eligibility for service.
Title : HK Meena v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected matter
CITATION: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 435
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a request to extend the date of voluntary retirement cannot be ignored if it is made before the retirement takes effect, even if the applicable service rules do not expressly provide for such an extension.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Inderjeet Singh observed that although the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, do not prescribe a procedure for extending the date of voluntary retirement, the absence of such a provision does not prohibit an employee from seeking an extension, particularly when the retirement has not yet taken effect.
“…merely because the writ petitioner has not used the specific term “withdrawal”, the communication made by him seeking extension of his date of voluntary retirement could not have been ignored when he clearly conveyed that he does not want his earlier retirement to take effect on the previously fixed date.”
Title : Ramniwas v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 436
Rajasthan High Court rejected second bail applications of accused persons charged with compromising the sanctity of UIDAI (Aadhar Card Project) by assisting a person who was operating an Aadhar Card Enrollment/Updatation Centre which was not in accordance with the conditions of UIDAI.
The bail applicants were government officials, who were working as programmer and assistance programmer, who were accused of being involved in fabrication, manipulation, and preparing forged and false Aadhar cards which could be used in anti-national activities.
While rejecting the bail application, the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that Rajasthan was a bordering state to Pakistan, and in border areas, resignation and updation in Aadhar data gave rise to activities that might be prejudicial to national interest.
Title : Monu Mohammed & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 437
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the fundamental consideration in the question of whether private defence was exceeded, cannot be based on a calm and retrospective appraisal the concerned person could have adopted, but whether the force employed could reasonable by assessed towards imminent danger as it appeared to the person then.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further opined that where the person apprehended the assailant to be capable of causing grave injury or taking life, the degree of fear the resulted from such apprehension was the relevant factor in answering the aforementioned question, and the plea of self defence must be examined without adopting a hyper-technical approach.
“It would, therefore, be legally impermissible to determine the question of excess by isolating the injuries caused from the circumstances in which they were inflicted or by applying a standard of detached deliberation to a situation of sudden peril.”
Title : Santosh Bansal v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 438
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed two FIRs registered against the sitting Hanumangarh MLA Ganesh Raj Bansal, his wife Santosh Bansal and their daughter in connection with alleged fraudulent transactions involving municipal land dating back to 2003.
Holding that the 'registration of both the FIRs is just an abuse of the process of law', the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain directed:
"Having considered the entirety and all the facts as narrated in the FIRs, No. 624/2026 and 625/2026, we are of the view that the registration of both the FIR are just an abuse of the process of law, that too after 23 years for the alleged official act of petitioner No. 1 is just an act of vendetta and harassment.The complainant having personal prejudices and bias to show animosity. Thus, these are illustrative categories as mentioned in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), and also in subsequent judgments till date.Therefore, we are not hesitant in arriving at a conclusion that the registration of the FIRs and all subsequent proceedings are sufficient to draw a conclusion that these are abuse of the process of law.
Title : State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Rupendra Kumar Sharma
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 439
Rajasthan High Court reinstated the suspension order of a Block Chief Medical Officer, accused of sexual harassment at workplace, which was set aside by the tribunal on the ground that no charge sheet was served upon the accused-respondent before suspending him.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that while it was laid down that if the charge sheet was not served, the suspension could not be extended beyond 3 months, however, no consequences was contemplated to the effect that in absence of a charge sheet the suspension would become illegal or be quashed automatically.
The Court further opined that more caution had to be exercised in cases involving sexual harassment to protect the interest of the complainant. If the suspension order was quashed on such technical grounds, it would send wrong message and put the complainant under pressure.
Rajasthan High Court Invokes India-US Treaty To Serve Summons On Rape Complainant Living In America
Title : Chander Bhushan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 440
Rajasthan High Court invoked the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) signed between Indian and the USA, read with Section 110 of BNSS, for ascertaining the whereabouts and serving notice to a woman in a rape case who was stated to have shifted to the USA after filing the complaint.
Section 110, BNSS governs reciprocal arrangements for serving or executing court processes in relation to any person residing outside India in a country with which Central Government had made required arrangements for such service.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a quashing petition in relation to an FIR alleging rape, in which the complainant remained unserved for about 2 years, and her whereabouts in India were not ascertainable.
After hearing the contentions, and considering the fact that despite multiple occasions, the prosecutrix remained unserved for 2 years, the Court held that she was the "star witness" in the present matter and the investigation could not proceed effectively without her participation.
Title : Vivek Sharma v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 441
The Rajasthan High Court recently observed that the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) tried to shield the proposed accused SBI officials by failing to register an FIR despite finding substance in a corruption complaint during verification and subsequently planning a trap.
A bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain held that once verification of a complaint disclosed information indicating the commission of a cognizable offence, the ACB was obligated to register an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act and conduct a full-fledged investigation. The matter could not be closed on the basis of a preliminary enquiry report.
Title : S v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 442
Rajasthan High Court upheld trial court's order that allowed maternal grand-mother to represent minors in a suit for maintenance filed against their father, after the death of the minors' mother who had initiated the maitenance claim.
The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal held that custody proceedings were separate from maintenance proceedings, and pendency of the former could not affect or extinguish the independent right of the minor children to claim maintenance under Section 144, BNSS.
“The custody proceedings concern the question as to with whom the minors should reside, keeping their welfare as the paramount consideration, whereas proceedings under Section 144 BNSS concern the statutory obligation to maintain them. Thus, the petitioner's claim of natural guardianship or his having instituted custody proceedings does not, by itself, determine or extinguish the children's claim for maintenance...
Rajasthan High Court Orders Reconsideration Of Retired Judge's Kidney Transplant Reimbursement Claim, Sets Aside Law Department's Rejection
Title : LRs. Of Late Shri Chandra Narayan Mathur v the State of Rajasthan & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 443
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the Law and Legal Affairs Department's order rejecting a retired judicial officer's claim for reimbursement of kidney transplant expenses, holding that the Department's Secretary could not question the validity of the authorisation granted by the State Authorisation Committee.
The Division Bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Bipin Gupta held that the Secretary was not the appellate authority under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994, and could not examine the validity of the authorisation granted by the State Authorisation Committees.
The Court also directed the Law and Legal Affairs Department to pay ₹50,000 as costs to the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. Further, the reimbursement amount was directed to be paid with 12% annual interest from the date of the claim until payment.
Title : Pooja Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 444
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to grant 180 days of maternity leave to a teacher who joined a new school after childbirth, along with her salary and all consequential benefits.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition seeking directions to the State authorities to grant the petitioner maternity leave under Rule 103 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.
The Court observed that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to motherhood and the right of every child to full development. It further held:
“If maternity means motherhood, then the object of maternity leave is to protect the dignity of motherhood by providing for full and healthy maintenance of the woman and her child. Maternity leave is intended to achieve the object of ensuring social justice to women as the motherhood and childhood, both require special attention. Not only are the health issues of the mother and the child considered while providing for maternity leave, but the leave is provided for creating a bond of affection between the two. Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to motherhood and also the right of every child to full development.”
Flood Of Pleas By Employees Challenging Their Transfers Has Paralysed Govt Functioning: Rajasthan High Court
Title : Vinod Agarwal v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 445
While hearing a bunch of petitions by government employees, challenging their transfer orders, Rajasthan High Court observed that the government functioning was paralysed since most of the employees were not willing to join the transferred place of posting.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further opined that maximum number of employees were approaching the Court for getting the transfer orders cancelled. It was held that the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226, is not to act as a second appellate authority over the transfer orders passed by the competent authority or the appellate tribunal.
Title : Sunil Kumar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 446
While refusing interference in a bunch of petitions by government employees seeking transfers at places where their spouses were posted, Rajasthan High Court held that a general policy and vacancy at the preferred station, in isolation, does not establish an enforceable right to transfer in favour of the employee.
“The nature of the post, the applicable cadre and service rules, staffing requirements at the existing and proposed places of posting, tenure considerations, suitability of the employee and competing administrative requirements may all bear upon the decision. Particularly in departments such as prisons and police, the requirements of maintaining operational strength and deploying personnel in accordance with administrative needs cannot be disregarded. A posting policy cannot be applied mechanically without regard to these considerations.”
At the same time, the bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur, observed that the circumstances in which the employees discharged duties had changed over time wherein women participation had expanded. Hence, desirability of posting spouses together could not be assessed by assuming that family responsibilities were discharged predominantly by one spouse.
Title : Sanjay alias Sethi v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 447
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a convict's inability to pay prosecution costs cannot, by itself, be a ground to revoke the benefit of probation and subject him to imprisonment.
The Court opined that difference had to be made between deliberate violation of the probation conditions and inability to comply with a monetary direction.
While wilful violation might result in consequences under Section 9 of the Act, inability to pay an amount, by itself, could not be treated as deliberate violation. Hence, benefit of violation once granted could not be withdrawn merely because an appellant was unable to arrange such amount.
“Such a consequence would make the benefit of probation dependent upon the financial capacity of the offender. In the present case, there is no material to show that the appellant deliberately failed to comply with the monetary direction or that he otherwise violated the conditions of probation. His inability to arrange the amount of Rs.10,000/- has resulted in his incarceration. In these circumstances, the mere failure to pay the amount towards prosecution expenses cannot, in the opinion of this Court, be treated as sufficient ground for withdrawing the benefit of probation already granted to him.”
Title : L v G
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 448
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a wife's prolonged refusal to have sexual relations without physical incapacity or a valid reason amounts to mental cruelty and constitutes a valid ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit upheld the divorce decree granted to the husband, finding that the wife's prolonged refusal to have physical relations and threats of suicide amounted to mental cruelty.
It also dismissed the wife's appeals against the divorce decree and the rejection of her petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act.
Title : Smt. Shivangi Khandelwal v State of Rajasthan & Anr
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 449
The Rajasthan High Court has held that nature of employment, whether regular, casual or contractual, cannot by itself be treated as a conclusive ground for denying maternity benefits to a woman employee, where other applicable statutory conditions are fulfilled.
In this regard, any contractual condition, contrary to the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 (the “Act”) shall be overridden by the Act.
The bench of Justice Bipin Gupta reasoned that maternity benefit is not merely a service related concession or an ordinary leave facility, but a statutory protection for safeguarding health, dignity and well-being of woman, rooted in constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity, as well as mandated by Article 42 of the Constitution.
Title : H v M
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 450
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the date for calculating the limitation period of 12 months prescribed under proviso to Section125(3) CrPC, is the one on which the order awarding maintenance is passed and not the date from which such maintenance is calculated.
Proviso to Section 125(3), CrPC, prescribed a period of limitation of 12 months for seeking recovery of the amount due under an order of maintenance, from the date on which such amount became due.
While interpreting the expression, “date on which the amount becomes due”, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that there was a difference between the period for which maintenance was awarded and the point of time when the amount became recoverable under the judicial direction.
“The statutory limitation is attracted with reference to the date on which the amount became due and not merely by reference to the length of the period for which maintenance has been calculated. Here, in this case, the application for recovery had been filed within limitation soon after amount became due.”
Title : Jai Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 451
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a doctor seeking to participate in the Medical Officer Direct Recruitment Examination, 2026, under his changed name must first get his name corrected in his educational documents.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted until his name was corrected in his school and college records.
It clarified that if his name was rectified in the educational documents by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education and the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS), he could furnish the corrected documents to the concerned authorities for necessary action.
Rajasthan High Court Rejects Third Bail Plea Of Cyber Fraud Accused Amid Rise In Online Scams
Title : Meghraj Saini v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 452
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected the third bail applications filed by two accused in a cybercrime case, observing that digital scams have emerged as one of the most insidious forms of cybercrime amid a noticeable rise in online frauds.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that phishing scams targeting bank customers were among the most widespread cybercrimes.
“Cyber criminals steal login credentials to access bank accounts and harvest credit and debit card information for financial gain, leading to the victims suffering from significant financial losses.”
Title : Shrawan Nath v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 453
The Rajasthan High Court has suspended the sentence imposed upon two men convicted in relation to human trafficking of a minor, opining that mere existence of marriage with a minor could not dispense with the prosecution's obligation to prove the essential ingredients of the substantive allegations against the convicts.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the Court must carefully distinguish between the legal consequences flowing from a marriage involving a minor and alleged commission of any separate criminal offence in connection with the marriage.
“Such an assessment must necessarily be undertaken with reference to the applicable law and without attributing criminal culpability merely on the basis of suspicion or the existence of circumstances which, by themselves, do not establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.”
Rajasthan High Court Admits Appeal Against SC/ST Ward Reservation Over Allegedly Fake Population Data, But Refuses To Stay Election Process
Title : Kanti Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 454
The Rajasthan High Court has admitted an appeal challenging the reservation of wards in Gram Panchayat Majhiwala for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), allegedly based on incorrect population data, but refused to stay the ongoing Panchayat election process.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu declined to interfere with the election process, observing that the State Election Commission had published the election programme for Rajasthan's Panchayat elections on October 3, 2026, thereby setting the process in motion.
Officer Who Supervised Recruitment Can't Order Probe Into Its Irregularities: Rajasthan High Court
Title : Virat Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 455
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a preliminary enquiry into alleged irregularities in the 2013 recruitment process for the post of Junior Assistant, holding that an officer who supervised the recruitment could not subsequently order an enquiry into the same process when doing so gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
A single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand reiterated the principle that no one can be a judge in their own cause, observing that the question was not whether actual bias had influenced the decision, but whether the circumstances created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
“The principle of law captured in the legal maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa would certainly apply in the present case because one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence is that no one ought to be a Judge in his/her own cause,” the Court observed.
Pending Corruption Case No Ground To Quash Departmental Charge-Sheet: Rajasthan High Courtv
Title : Surendra Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 456
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an FIR filed against a delinquent employee, and departmental proceedings are two different processes, that can run concurrently, and there is no legal bar in holding both of these simultaneously.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further opined that generally, a writ petition does not survive against the charge-sheet issued in departmental proceedings, unless it is established that the same was issued by an authority which was not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
“It is a settled law that charge-sheet cannot be interfered with by the Court lightly or in a routine manner. The delinquent employee instead of seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, at the initial stage must submit his/her reply before the Enquiry Officer /Disciplinary Authority and wait for conclusion of the proceedings.”
Title : Naveen v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 457
While hearing a criminal petition, the Rajasthan High Court took serious note of obscene photographs of the minor victim remaining visible on the paperless module system, despite its earlier order laying down guidelines to protect the identity and privacy of victims in sexual offence cases.
A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the failure to mask the photographs of the prosecutrix/victim amounted to non-compliance with the Court's earlier directions and invaded her privacy.
The Court sought an explanation from the concerned clerk for the failure to mask the photographs and directed the Secretary and Chairman of the Bar Council of Rajasthan to formulate guidelines requiring lawyers practising in the State to exercise caution while filing petitions and applications before courts.
Title : Suman Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 458
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to reconsider a far-off transfer of a mother of 2-months old infant, opining that it was the general perception that as far as possible, a woman employee who was having a child below one year should not be disturbed and her case should be considered sympathetically rather than mechanically.
While underscoring the right of motherhood as well as the right of the infant of being breast-fed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that involvement of an infant shifted the legal lens from administrative efficiency to the best interests of the child since the latter became paramount consideration for the Court.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted lack of policy for handling such exigencies involving women employees who had recently delivered or had an infant to take care of, and appealed to the Government to put in place an appropriate transfer policy to take care of this hardship faced by both the mother and the infant.
Title : Gangaram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 459
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a prisoner who is convicted for rape under IPC or POCSO Act, is not totally ineligible to be transferred to an Open Air Camp, provided some special/exceptional circumstances are established. However, such prisoner does not have an automatic right for such transfer.
The full bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sameer Jain, and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed,
"A prisoner convicted under Section 376 IPC or POCSO Act is not totally ineligible for transfer to an Open Air Camp. However, such a prisoner has no automatic right to admission in Open Air Camp, and the nature and gravity of the offence including the age of the victim and the facts of the case are legitimate considerations for the Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee must make an individualised, reasoned assessment of institutional conduct, reformative potential, risk and readiness for reintegration, and record its reasons for transfer to Open Air Camp."
Title : Bhanwar Singh v State of Rajasthan
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 460
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the conviction of a man whose appeal against the conviction has been since 2013, allowing him to contest the upcoming Panchayat elections, provided he is otherwise eligible.
A single-judge bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the petitioner should not be denied the opportunity to contest the elections merely because his appeal has remained pending for years and is unlikely to be heard in the near future.
The Court highlighted material discrepancies and “gross conflict” in the testimony of a significant eye-witness and the statement of the victim. Further, the Court stated that one of the prime witnesses was not produced by prosecution. The Court further considered the record of the phone call made by the victim to the main accused, asking him to come and take her away.
Title : Ramniwas v Union of India & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 461
The Rajasthan High Court has termed the dismissal of a CRPF employee, who was serving as a Dhobi, for consuming alcohol and misbehaving with colleagues as "shockingly disproportionate" to the misconduct and contrary to the provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (CRPF Act).
“There is no charge of committing more heinous offence against the petitioner and when the petitioner is charged for less heinous offence then how can one presume that for less heinous offence a person be penalized in a manner that he has to lose his job. A termination or removal is always treated as major penalty and it can be awarded only when there is a grave misconduct.”
Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, while noting that the employee had not been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before his dismissal, observed that being a disciplined force did not mean that an employee could be denied a fair hearing or an opportunity to present his defence during disciplinary proceedings.
Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Notify 'Custodial Death Relief Scheme' Within 3 Months
Title : Suo Motu v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 462
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State Government to finalise, approve and formally notify the Rajasthan Custodian Death Relief Scheme, 2025, within three months, while issuing a series of directions to improve prison conditions across the State.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain issued the directions while disposing of a batch of PILs concerning the rights, welfare and dignity of prisoners, as well as infrastructure, security and living conditions in Rajasthan's jails.
The Court also constituted a permanent State-Level Monitoring Committee, headed by the District Judge of the respective district, to monitor prison conditions, facilitate the implementation of judicial directions and ensure compliance.
Title : Manglesh Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 463
The Rajasthan High Court has held that conviction and sentence already undergone by a husband (principal debtor) in respect of the same underlying transaction in which his wife had also issued a security cheque, as a guarantor, does not furnish a ground to her to seek quashing of proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal further observed that liability of a guarantor, arising from a cheque issued as security, could not be excluded from Section 138, NI Act, merely on the ground that the guarantor's liability was co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under the general law of contract.
Title : Santosh Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 464
The Rajasthan High Court has refused interim relief to a woman who migrated from Haryana to Rajasthan, declining to stay a restriction that bars her from claiming reservation benefits in Panchayat elections on the basis of her caste certificate.
The division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Anuroop Singhi rejected the stay application filed by the woman, who sought permission to contest the upcoming Panchayati Raj elections under the Scheduled Caste category.
The Court took note of the cases relied upon by the State, and observed,
“…has categorically taken a view declining the benefit of reservation to the migrated person, based on the caste certificate, in the Panchayat Election so much so, has also directed to put a rider/note on the Caste Certificate, that the migrated person shall not be entitled to claim benefit of reservation in public employment and elections including Panchayat Election. It may be true that the issue may be sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the judgment of Division Bench in case of Rekha Kumari (supra) has not yet been stayed or set aside, hence, we are not convinced to take a contrary view.”
Number Of Criminal Cases Alone Can't Justify Continued Police Surveillance: Rajasthan High Court
Title : Naresh Prajapat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 465
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the mere number of criminal cases registered against a person cannot by itself justify continued police surveillance. It thus directed the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, to reconsider the continuance of a history-sheet opened against a man who had 12 cases registered against him but had suffered only one conviction, nearly 30 years ago.
The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal clarified that while conviction is not a prerequisite for opening a history-sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules 1965 (the “Rules”), competent authority needs to have reasonable grounds for believing that the person fell within the relevant category prescribed within the Rules
“The numerical threshold cannot be read in isolation from the applicable Rules of 1965 or as eliminating the need for a lawful exercise of discretion. The decision thus underscores the importance of examining not merely the existence of criminal cases, but also their number, recency and the surrounding circumstances. It does not, however, support the proposition that acquittal, compromise or the absence of conviction invariably bars the opening or continuance of a history sheet in every case.”
Rajasthan High Court Closes Asaram's Plea After State Complies With 20-Day Parole Order
Title : Asharam alias Ashumal v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 466
The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a contempt petition filed against the State for non-compliance with the Court order granting 20 days' parole to Asaram.
Noting that the State substantially complied with the order, the Division Bench of Justice Nupur Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed:
"This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the compliance report along with the Office Order dated 28.10.2026, which establishes that the applicant was, in fact, released on parole on 08.10.2026 for the stipulated period of twenty days in compliance with the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by the Court. The fact that the applicant surrendered on 28.10.2026, instead of 27.10.2026, does not detract from the fact that the benefit of parole for the period directed by this Court has already been extended to him. In these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the directions contained in the order dated 03.08.2026 have been substantially complied with and no further directions are warranted in the present misc. application. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no further adjudication is called for in the present matter. Accordingly, the present miscellaneous application is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous".