Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 357 to 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 407NOMINAL INDEXBabu Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 357Sattar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 358State of Rajasthan v Gopal Singh; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 359Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 360Phusaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 361Manni Devi v Bhuli...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 357 to 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
NOMINAL INDEX
Babu Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 357
Sattar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 358
State of Rajasthan v Gopal Singh; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 359
Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 360
Phusaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 361
Manni Devi v Bhuli Devi & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 362
Rajendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 363
M/s S.S. Corporation v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 364
Nand Kishore v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 365
Surendra Khinchi v the Bar Council of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 366
Manish Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 367
Ramlaxman Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 368
United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v Baroda Rajasthan Shetriya Gramin Bank; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 369
Gopali Devi v Gyarsi Lal & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 370
Apporva Agrawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 371
Shriram Enterprises v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 372
M v S; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 373
Surendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 374
Pramod Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 375
Mahendra Kumar Mehta v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 376
Vimal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 377
Neeraj Bishnoi v Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 378
Dwarka v Durgalal & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 379
Kishna Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. ; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 380
Makhan Lal Mishra v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 381
Kuldeep Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 382
State of Rajasthan v Bhanwar Lal Jain; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 383
S v T; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 384
R v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 385
Indusind Bank Limited v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 386
Darshita Gupta v Consortium of National Law Universities and Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 387
Kanhaiya Lal v State Election Commission & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 388
Rohitash Meena v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 389
S v A; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 390
Pooran Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 391
Parmila Gupta v Jaipur Airport Authority & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 392
Shri Choth Mal Verma and Anr. v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 393
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Jeetendra Kumar Choudhary; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 394
Munni Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 395
Chairman cum Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v Jagdish Chandra Bissa; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 396
Mohd. Sharif & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 397
Gulam Mohd. V Gopal Traders & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 398
Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 399
Kanta Devi & Ors. v Parsaram & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 400
Bihari Lal v Navratanmal Bamb & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 402
Heera Mani v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 403
Deepak Meena v the Chairman cum Managing Director, JVVNL & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 404
E v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 405
Vinita Pooniya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 406
Vedprakash v Chittorgarh Central Coop. Bank Ltd. & Anr; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
Suo Motu v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan, Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University v Union of India, and other connected matters
Kavita Bhati v the Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti
Hari Om v State of Rajasthan
Sanjay Ashiya v State of Rajasthan
Deepak Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Sushil Midha v State of Rajasthan
Sumit & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Anil Mittal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Judgments of the Month
Mere Variation In Disability Assessments Cannot Prove Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Employee's Termination
Title: Babu Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 357
While setting aside the termination of a disabled employee, Rajasthan High Court held that a mere variation between two legally valid medical assessment reports, could not by itself be treated as proof of fraud by the employee in securing the employment.
The bench of Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit opined that in case of such variations, if the earlier disability certificate required reconsideration, the matter should be dealt with as per the statutory framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the “Act”), rather than treating the former one extinguished in light of the latter.
“The certificate issued under the statutory framework is not a document which can simply be ignored by an administrative authority without examining its legal status. The statutory scheme also contemplates a mechanism for questioning a decision of the certifying authority. Therefore, if the respondents were of the opinion that the earlier certificate was incorrect or required reconsideration, the matter was required to be dealt with in accordance with the statutory framework and applicable procedure, rather than treating the later medical opinion as automatically extinguishing the legal effect of the earlier certificate.”
Title: Sattar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 358
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the power of recall under Section 311 CrPC can be exercised by criminal courts even after the evidence of both sides is closed. It held that the consideration under the provision is not whether the evidence is closed, but whether the concerned evidence appeared essential for a just decision of the case.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman further opined that restriction under Section 362 CrPC, on criminal courts altering or reviewing their judgment or final orders once signed, does not prevent the Court from exercising its independent power under Section 311 CrPC during pendency of the trial and before the pronouncement of the final order/judgment.
“…during the pendency of the trial and before the final judgment is pronounced and signed, the Court is not rendered functus officio merely because the evidence of a particular witness had earlier been closed. The provisions of Sections 311 and 362 Cr.P.C. operate in distinct fields and are required to be harmoniously construed. Hence, Section 362 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked as an absolute bar against exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon, recall or re-examine a witness whose evidence had earlier been closed, where the Court is satisfied that such evidence is essential for arriving at a just decision in the case.”
Title: State of Rajasthan v Gopal Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 359
While upholding trial court's decision that acquitted an NDPS accused, Rajasthan High Court observed that unless it was established by the prosecution that the accused had conscious knowledge of his house/premises/vehicle/property being used for storage, concealment or transportation of contraband, offence under Section 25 was not made out.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman held that the phrase “knowingly” used under Section 25, NDPS Act, was of paramount importance and the essential ingredient of knowledge could not be assumed merely based on the ownership of the property.
“Ownership of the vehicle without any material linking the petitioner to the transportation and possession of the contraband goods cannot make him criminally liable and filing of charge-sheet against the owner on the ground of mere registration of the vehicle is, therefore, legally unsustainable. Knowledge or conscious permission forms the sine-qua-non for invocation of Section 25 of NDPS Act.”
Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 360
The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed the order of the trial court and the revisional court to hold that no prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required before taking cognizance against the appellant-police officer who was accused of severely beating the respondent while the latter was allegedly under illegal detention.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania affirmed that the act done by the petitioner could not be said to be in performance of his official duty, rather he acted beyond the same.
“…for the purpose of application of Section 197, a sine qua non is that the public servant is accused of any offence which had been committed by him in “discharge of his official duty”. The said expression would clearly indicate that Section 197 of the CrPC would not apply to a case if a public servant is accused of any offence which is de hors or not connected to the discharge of his or her official duty.”
Title: Phusaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 361
Rajasthan High Court held that where confiscation process had begun under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (“Rules”) and the liability/penalty payable in relation to the vehicle was determined, the vehicle could be released only upon payment of such statutory amount and not merely on personal security.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu also held that criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings under the mining laws operate separately and independently of each other. Hence, pendency or outcome of criminal prosecution did not postpone or nullify the proceedings undertaken under the mining laws.
"Another aspect requiring consideration is whether pendency of the criminal prosecution affects the statutory proceedings for confiscation and recovery under the mining laws. The criminal prosecution and the confiscation proceedings undertaken under the mining laws operate in distinct fields and serve different purposes. Criminal prosecution is directed towards determination of the criminal liability of the offender and imposition of punishment in accordance with law. Confiscation proceedings, on the other hand, concern the property or instrumentality involved in the illegal activity and are intended to provide an effective statutory mechanism for dealing with such property and preventing its further use in unlawful activities. They also serve as an effective deterrent against repeated violations of the mining laws. The confiscation mechanism is, therefore, an independent statutory remedy operating alongside the criminal prosecution"
Title: Manni Devi v Bhuli Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 362
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an interim order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (“RAA”) in a time-barred appeal, opining that interim stay in a time-barred appeal could be passed only in extreme circumstances of a given case where the order in appeal had some serious consequences.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that without condoning the delay in such time-barred appeal, the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same.
“Unless the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the appeal cannot be said to have come into existence in the eyes of law. In the absence of a validly instituted appeal, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and decide a time barred appeal on merits. Hence, unless delay is condoned in accordance with law, the appeal cannot be treated as having been validly instituted.”
Title: Rajendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 363
Rajasthan High Court has held that while it was true that a court cannot direct the police to conduct an investigation in a particular manner, however the reasons given by a court in its order directing further investigation must not be itself construed as a direction for point-wise investigation.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu was hearing a petition seeking quashing of an order by the Magistrate that directed further investigation in the matter filed against the petitioner.
"In the present case, the learned trial Court, while considering the application seeking further investigation, has observed that the investigating agency, while filing the negative final report, had not conducted investigation with regard to the necessary documents, particularly the voters list and the relevant pattas. It was further observed that the material in question had not been sent for FSL examination.
It was opined that these were the reasons provided by the magistrate while allowing the application for further investigation, without directing any particular mode or manner of investigation to be adopted by the investigation officer.
Title: M/s S.S. Corporation v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 364
The Rajasthan High Court has held that repeated notices seeking payment of outstanding dues cannot substitute a proper notice informing a contractor that failure to comply could result in blacklisting or debarment from future tenders.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside an order against the petitioner that debarred its participation in any further tenders of the respondent-department on account of non-payment of certain dues despite several notices, in the background that no opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the order.
“The petitioner was served with a brief show cause notice levelling certain charges against him. Thereafter, without providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, straightaway the impugned order has been passed by the respondents.”
Title: Nand Kishore v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 365
While rejecting a bail application in an NDPS matter, Rajasthan High Court affirmed that compliance under Section 42 of the NDPS Act (“Act”), may be postponed for a reasonable period, where the information was received by the police office while being on patrol duty or otherwise on move, and immediate action was called for.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Karnail Singh v State of Karyana which observed,
“…where information is received while the officer is on patrol duty or otherwise on the move and calls for immediate action, compliance with Section 42 may, in an emergent situation, be postponed for a reasonable period. However, total non-compliance with the requirements of Section 42(1) and (2) is impermissible.”
Title: Surendra Khinchi v the Bar Council of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 366
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Bar Council of Rajasthan (“BCR”) to dispose of all pending applications for enrolment as advocates latest by September 9 and to inform the concerned candidates accordingly.
While taking note of many pending applications for enrolment as advocates, Justice Shubha Mehta stated that such delay was adversely impacting the right to livelihood of the candidates.
While highlighting that along with the petitioner's, applications of several other candidates were also pending, the Court stated that delay in enrolment was causing difficulty to the candidates and was adversely affecting their right to livelihood.
Title: Manish Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 367
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the office of Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General (GA-cum-AAG) to call upon factual reports of FIRs, preferably within 3-7 days of filing of bail applications, based on which the bail shall be heard and decided in cases of petty offences, unless the Court considers it necessary to call for the case diaries.
While underscoring the issue of delay in hearing of bail applications, the bench of Justice Ravi Chirania held that sometimes in the matters of petty offences, the bail applications could be decided on merits, at the earliest, even without the case diary, depending upon the fact of each case.
Title: Ramlaxman Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 368
The Rajasthan High Court has held that husband and wife were separate entities, and neither could be held liable for the misconduct or disgraceful act of the other, done in the capacity of a public representative, unless they have also indulged in the same.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined, a spouse of an erstwhile public representative, could not be asked to pay dues owed by of his/her husband/wife in their capacity as the former public representative, unless it was proved that the concerned spouse was also involved in the related misconduct.
“A Public Representative himself/herself is alone liable and responsible for his/her disgraceful act or any misconduct. If at all any recovery proceedings are initiated against him/her, he/she alone is liable to clear the dues and deposit the amount pending against him/her. This Court fails to understand how recovery proceedings can be initiated against the family members of the erstwhile Sarpanch or any other Public Representative.”
Title: United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v Baroda Rajasthan Shetriya Gramin Bank
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 369
The Rajasthan High Court has held the a bank's claim of loss from dacoity cannot be rejected by the insurance company on the ground of bank's failure to follow the security guidelines prescribed by the RBI, when the fact of such non-compliance was communicated by the bank to the insurance company in the policy proposal.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that once appropriate premium amount was accepted and the policy was released by the insurance company in the bank's favour, the former was bound by promissory estoppel.
The Court held that before issuing the policy in the bank's favour, the insurance company could have asked the bank to complete the requisite formalities, regarding the security guidelines issued by the RBI. However, without doing do, straight-away the policy was issued by the petitioner.
Title: Gopali Devi v Gyarsi Lal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 370
While setting aside the order of Revenue Board, Rajasthan High Court held that if an appeal was filed against an order of remand, and the higher court was satisfied that the order was not just/proper, the matter could be remanded to the first appellate court for deciding afresh, but the plaintiff's revenue suit could not be rejected.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if such orders dismissing suits were allowed, the appellant would be deprived of the right to avail remedy of first appeal.
The Court held,
“…if the Board was of the view that the order passed by the RAA was not legally sustainable in the eyes of law, then the matter could have been remanded to the RAA with clear and specific directions to decide the appeal on its merits by quashing the order of remand, but in the instant case, the Board has gone one step ahead and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff as well. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to avail the remedy of first appeal.”
Title: Apporva Agrawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 371
The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a PIL that raised concerns regarding the protection of leopard habitat in the Jawai region of District Pali and sought regulations on construction and tourism, by declaring the area within one kilometer of the notified boundary of Jawai Leopard Conservation Reserved as the interim regulatory threshold.
It was clarified that,
“The said distance is, therefore, not being declared to be an immutable ecological boundary or a permanent no-construction radius. It is adopted as an interim, evidence-informed regulatory threshold until the State completes geo-referenced mapping, ecological and carrying-capacity assessment and frames a comprehensive policy capable of identifying areas requiring absolute protection and areas where regulated or permissible activity may appropriately be allowed.”
At the same time, the Court clarified that certain village and essential activities shall not be treated as prohibited merely because they fell within the 1 km distance, including residential construction; repair or reconstruction without material expansion; schools, anganwadis, drinking water facilities; traditional agriculture, grazing and other customary livelihood activities, provided requisite permissions were taken as prescribed by law and there was compliance with wildlife-friendly conditions.
While ordering the continuity of the directions given in earlier orders dated March 23, 2026 and April 4, 2026, as well as the SOP presented by the State in the last hearing, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rekha Borana laid down certain other directions to remain operative till formulation and notification of a comprehensive policy by the State.
Title: M/s Shriram Enterprises v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 372
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the confiscation proceedings initiated by the Mining Department and the criminal proceedings initiated for illegal mining are separate, and conclusion of criminal case does not automatically result in release of the vehicle seized therein.
For context, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”), in which the petitioner's vehicle was seized. The driver of the vehicle pleaded guilty but was released after getting benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The Magistrate directed that if the vehicle was not required in any other case, it may be released.
After hearing the contentions, the bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu highlighted that the Magistrate had only ordered a conditional release of the vehicle subject to it not being required in any other case. The Court observed that the Magistrate was dealing only with the complaint under the MV Act and no report from the Mining Department was called for.
In this background, while opining that the proceedings under both the MV Act and the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, were separate.
Title: M v S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 373
The Rajasthan High Court has held that denial of cohabitation by the wife as well as filing of a false criminal case against the husband, amount to cruelty.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja was hearing an appeal against Family Court's rejection of a divorce application filed by the appellant-husband.
The Court stated, “the husband and the wife both are living separately since the year 2010 and there is no chance of their re-union at this point of time. In our considered view, asking both them to live together at this point of time amounts to cruelty to both of them, as there is no chance of their re-union.
Title: Surendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 374
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on a man accused under Section 319(2) BNS, for representing himself to be an advocate without enrolment with the Bar Council and making appearances before the trial court.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania opined,
"No person can be permitted to practise as an Advocate or represent himself as an advocate unless until he is duly enrolled with the respective Bar Council of State in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961."
The Court was hearing a quashing petition for an FIR against the petitioner, who had allegedly, presented himself as an advocate before courts in certain matters and had also made certain filings, without having any bar enrolment.
Title: Pramod Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 375
The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of the lethargic and casual approach adopted by the stakeholders involved in digitization of the case files, leading to demonstrated delays in uploading of documents on the portal of the Paperless Module, causing great inconvenience to the Court and in-turn frustration of the objective of paperless courts.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further observed that suitable amendments were needed in the Standing Order passed by the Registrar General on November 2, 2020, delineating roles and responsibilities of High Court staff for scanning of criminal cases. It held that the Standing Order could not be limited to criminal matters anymore.
“Much time has passed after issuance of the Standing Order dated 02.11.2020. This order needs suitable amendments as it is confined to criminal matters only and it is required to be applicable to all kinds of matters of this Court. The Standing Order dated 02.11.2020 should not be confined to criminal cases only, as presently we are undergoing to the new era of technology and in process of shifting to the paperless Court functioning in all kinds of matters pending in Civil/Criminal/Writ/Miscellaneous cases.”
Title: Mahendra Kumar Mehta v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 376
The Rajasthan High Court has constituted a committee to coordinate with the Trust of the Ramdevra Temple, in Jaisalmer, to oversee the sanitation, healthcare and law & order requirement of the devotees, and create basic infrastructure facilities in this regard.
The division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma was hearing a PIL that alleged lack of appropriate infrastructure and basic facilities like sanitation and healthcare, to cater to an excess influx of around 2-3 lakhs devotees, on a daily basis, during particular months.
Title: Vimal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 377
The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a PIL filed in 2018, seeking directions for regular appointment of Art Teachers (Drawing and Music) in government schools, alleging that the existing teachers who were imparting Arts education to students were not graduate in Art.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja took note of the affidavit filed by the State as well as the submission by the Advocate General, as per which the State had directed that art education shall be imparted to the students of Classes I to X by teachers who had studied Arts as a subject in their B.Ed Course.
Title: Neeraj Bishnoi v Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 378
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a government employee could not be said to have remained politically neutral, as was mandated under Rule 3(1)(vii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (“Rules”), if s/he contested elections as an official candidate of a political party.
Rule 3(1)(vii), provides that a government servant shall, at all times, maintain political neutrality.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja further opined that even if such elections were contested after resignation from service, while considering withdrawal of such resignation, he would considered to have undertaken such prohibited activities.
Title : Dwarka v Durgalal & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 379
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a trial court's decision to condone the delay in filing a written statement in a non-commercial civil suit, observing that the timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory, and that there can be no straitjacket formula for deciding whether a delayed written statement should be accepted.
The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that although a party seeking to file a written statement beyond the statutory timeline must provide sufficient reasons or a justified explanation, such reasons have to be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case, rather than through a rigid or inflexible approach.
Title: Kishna Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 380
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the mechanism of discovery and production of documents under Order XI, Rules 12 and 14 of CPC, could not be invoked merely because a litigant found it convenient to obtain evidence though the opposite party, especially when such evidence was otherwise reasonably accessible to them.
“The processes of court cannot be made a handmaiden of indolent litigators. Neither can said provisions be reduced into a medium of collecting evidence in support of foundational facts pleaded by such party, the burden of establishing which lies upon it…”
The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit was hearing a petition challenging order of the trial court that rejected an application by the petitioner seeking production of certain documents that were allegedly in the respondent-department's custody.
The Court opined that the documents in question were public documents, being part of official records of the respondent-department, and hence, were capable of being obtained as per the applicable laws governing production of public documents.
Title : Makhan Lal Mishra v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 381
While upholding penalty imposed on an in-charge of a Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Rajasthan High Court observed that failure on part of the petitioner's subordinate in carrying out his duties, did not absolve the petitioner from all his responsibilities, especially when nothing on record suggested any action taken against the subordinate.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma was hearing challenge against the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed against the petitioner over the allegations of issuing irregular sickness/fitness certificate to another government servant.
Rajasthan High Court Rejects Plea Against Deletion From Voter List, Cites Bar Under Article 243ZG
Title : Kuldeep Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 382
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a man's plea challenging the deletion of his name from the voter list for the Nagar Palika General Election 2026, in light of the prohibition imposed by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India.
Article 243 ZG bars courts from interfering in the matters relating to municipal elections.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the matter pertained to casting of vote in the upcoming Municipal Elections for which a detailed election program was already issued by the Rajasthan State Election Commission, and hence the election process was already initiated.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Bhanwar Lal Jain
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 383
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) in dispute relating to service benefits, opining that the jurisdiction of PLA could only be invoked for redressal of grievances that dealt with “public utility services” as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the “Act”).
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing challenge against an order passed by the PLA, Merta, Nagaur, in which the Public Heath Engineering Department was directed to grant service benefits to the respondent since the initial date of his appointment.
Title: S v T
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 384
Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition by a wife, seeking transfer of divorce proceedings from Alwar to Jaipur opining that that merely because petitioner had claimed to be not financially well-off, it could not be accepted that she was unable or incapable of travelling, especially when the respondent-husband was ready to pay off her expenses for such travel.
The bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali also took note of the fact that the petitioner was not a permanent resident of Jaipur and was allegedly residing there in a live-in relationship with another man.
Title: R v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 385
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed quashing of an FIR for the offence of rape and under POCSO Act, on the ground of compromise reached between parties, taking into account the past cordial relationship between them as well as their marriage and consequentially bleak chances of successful prosecution.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman opined that it was highly unlikely that the victim would support the case during trial, hence, continuing with the proceedings would be a futile exercise, that would unnecessarily burden the judicial system, causing wastage of time and resources of trial court.
While underscoring the principle that does not allow compromise in heinous cases, the Court observed,
“However, this principle is not absolute in the sent that the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers as per Section 482 if the CrP.C. is empowered to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise in suitable cases…Such cases would be those in which the matter is largely personal in nature or the offence, though falling within a serious provision, is not in substance a serious offence from a social point of view. If the Court is of the opinion that the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but a mere formality and that the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak because of the compromise between the parties, and that no useful purpose is served in keeping proceedings pending…it may exercise its discretion to quash…”
Title: Indusind Bank Limited v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 386
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the police officials to take all possible endeavours to restore the possession of a mortgaged property forcibly taken over by loan defaulters from the bank, which had lawful authority over it in terms of the SARFAESI Act.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that respondent-borrowers had used "muscle power" to take over the property and an FIR was also registered against them in this regard. However, even after passing of considerable time, no steps were taken by the police.
Title: Darshita Gupta v Consortium of National Law Universities and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 387
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a CLAT 2026 candidate seeking modification of her reservation category from Unreserved General-Women to General-Rajasthan Domicile, after the first provisional list was already declared by the CLAT-Consortium.
The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma observed that a belated correction or modification of an application form, especially change of reservation category, post expiry of the cut-off date would erode the sanctity of the admission process, and hence could not be allowed.
Title: Kanhaiya Lal v State Election Commission & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 388
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition challenging rejection of Petitioner's nomination papers for the election of Ward Member, Municipal Board Brij Nagar, District Deeg, opining that as per the bar under Article 243-ZG, no election to any municipality could be called into question except by filing an Election Petition,
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that as per Section 31, of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (“the Act”), improper rejection or acceptance of nomination paper was a ground to declare elections void, and as per the statutory bar under Article 243-ZG, the Court did not have jurisdiction to examine the petition.
Title: Rohitash Meena v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 389
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of the State that stopped and forfeited petitioner's entire pension on the ground of a conviction and imprisonment under the Prevention of Corruption Act (“the Act”), in the background of the fact that no notice was serviced upon the petition before passing of the order.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma affirmed that even where conviction stood proven, petitioner had the right to put forth mitigating circumstances before the concerned authority for consideration regarding the nature and extent of penalty.
Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree After Estranged Couple Reconciles, Restores Marriage
Title: S v A
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 390
While quoting Mahabharata, Rajasthan High Court reversed a divorce decree in light of the post-facto reconciliation reached between the couple for the welfare of their minor daughter, and opined that while administering justice, the Court could not lose sight of the fact that matrimonial litigation was not merely competing legal claims but involved human relations.
The division bench of Justice Uma Shanker Vyas and Justice Sameer Jain observed that a child's welfare is best served when the parents' differences were replaced with understanding, responsibility and mutual respect. Matrimonial disputes shall not become an irreversible barrier where parties themselves found a path towards reconciliation.
“Marriage, in the Hindu mythology has never been regarded as a mere contract between two individuals; it is a sacred sacrament, a sanskara, in which two souls undertake to walk together through the journey of life…reconciliation is not a surrender to the past; it is a conscious choice to give the future another chance. Where two persons, after traversing the difficult path of discord, voluntarily choose to walk together once again, the law should, wherever permissible, facilitate that journey towards peace and restoration.”
Title: Pooran Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 391
The Rajasthan High Court has held that while exercising powers under Section 125 Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (the “Act”), the Registrar cannot make such interference that curtails or undermines the autonomy of the society.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma was hearing a petition challenging the orders by which the petitioner's regularisation as a Class IV employee of the Central Cooperative Bank Limited was cancelled and his services were terminated.
Title: Parmila Gupta v Jaipur Airport Authority & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 392
The Rajasthan High Court has granted a last opportunity to a woman to lead her evidence in a land acquisition case pending for over 12 years, subject to her depositing Rs. 10,000 in the Junior Advocates Welfare Fund and planting 25 shade-bearing trees in a public area.
A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition challenging an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, which had closed the petitioner's opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examination in a land acquisition reference.
Title: Shri Choth Mal Verma and Anr. v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 393
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered transfer of 25% monthly salary of a deceased employee's former wife, to his mother's account, after the wife remarried and allegedly abandoned the parents of the deceased, despite securing compassionate appointment after his death.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that after availing benefit of compassionate appointment based on an undertaking that she would maintain other family members too, the wife could not disassociate herself from the obligation that formed the basis of the appointment.
“Her subsequent departure from the matrimonial home and remarriage, coupled with the admitted failure to maintain the petitioners, is nothing but apparent violation of fundamental spirit of scheme of compassionate appointment. It cannot be countenanced that, after the death of her husband, the daughter-in-law, having secured compassionate appointment in his place, may thereafter abandon her old aged in-laws and leave them at the mercy of destiny.”
Pendency Of Criminal Case Can Keep Selected Candidate Out Of Govt Job, Rajasthan High Court Says; Allows Joining After Acquittal
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Jeetendra Kumar Choudhary
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 394
The Rajasthan High Court has held that State can withhold the appointment of a person against whom a criminal case is pending, since it could not be presumed that in a pending criminal case, a person seeking employment would be acquitted.
The bench of former Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekha Sharma, opined that if a person, who was facing criminal charges, was given employment, it would send a wrong message to other persons because such person's character could not be said to be clean and would be in cloud till he was acquitted.
E-Mitra's Alleged Error Can't Help Candidate Who Failed To Correct Caste Category Within Permitted Window: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Munni Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 395
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a candidate for the post of Class-IV teacher, who was seeking change of her category from OBC to General while contending that the mistake was inadvertent committed by the e-mitra operator who filled her form, and was not deliberate on her part.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sandeep Shah affirmed that the status of a candidate in a competitive selection had to remain consistent throughout the process. It was observed that the petitioner was given enough opportunities to rectify the error, however, the rectification application was moved only after the declaration of the result.
“The fact that the appellant waited for the declaration of the result itself reflects that the appellant had purposely chosen not to change the category in the form filled up by her.”
Patient Forced To Buy Stents From Private Shop Due To Unavailability At Govt Hospital Entitled To Full Reimbursement: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Chairman cum Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v Jagdish Chandra Bissa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 396
Rajasthan High Court upheld a single judge order directing the State to reimburse the respondent for the entire cost of the stents implanted during his treatment at the government hospital which were procured from a private supplier due to unavailability at the hospital.
While underscoring the right to healthcare and affordable treatment as part of Article 21, the division bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the provisions relating to reimbursement of medical treatment had to be construed liberally.
Pending Reference Before Larger Bench Does Not Justify Adjudication Of Academic Question If Lis Does Not Survive: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Mohd. Sharif & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 397
While dismissing a petition which was referred to a larger bench to decide a substantial question of law, Rajasthan High Court held that mere formulation or reference of a substantial question of law did not, by itself, compel the Court to adjudicate the matter in case subsequent events had rendered the matter infructuous and the controversy merely academic.
The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal, Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sameer Jain, opined that a constitutional court did not pronounce on question of law in factual vacuum, particularly when the answer did not alter the position of parties, neither resulted in any effective relief.
“The mere pendency of a reference for a long period cannot by itself justify adjudication of an otherwise academic question. The Court must first ascertain whether a live lis survives and whether determination of the referred question would have any operative consequence in the present proceedings. Where subsequent statutory developments, efflux of time and intervening circumstances have extinguished the controversy, the question ought to be left open for determination in an appropriate case where its adjudication would have an actual legal consequence.”
Cheque Bounce Case | Authenticated Bank Return Memo Can Be Produced Later To Correct Defect: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Gulam Mohd. V Gopal Traders & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 398
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an authenticated bank return memo bearing the bank's seal and signature can be produced and exhibited later in a cheque-dishonour case to correct an inadvertent defect in an earlier return memo, and such subsequent production does not amount to filling a lacuna in the complainant's case.
Justice Sunil Beniwal further observed that merely exhibiting a document does not amount to admitting or proving it as evidence. The purpose of exhibiting a document is to mark it for identification, while its admissibility and evidentiary value have to be determined separately in accordance with law.
Accused Entitled To Cloned Copy Of CCTV Footage Relied By Prosecution, Victim Privacy Can Justify Inspection Instead: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 399
While underscoring right to fair trial under Article 21, Rajasthan High Court held that if the prosecution was relying upon the contents of a DVD/pen drive which were also submitted along with the charge-sheet, the accused had to be mandatorily given a cloned copy of the DVD/pen drive, to enable him to present an effective defence during the trial.
“…all documents including “electronic record” produced for the inspection of the Court along-with the police report and which prosecution proposes to use against the accused must be furnished to the accused as per the mandate of Section 207 of the 1973 Code. The concomitant is that the contents of the DVD/pen drive must be furnished to the accused, which can be done in the form of cloned copy of the DVD /pendrive.”
At the same time, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that in cases where the issue of privacy of the complainant/victim/prosecutrix or his/her identity was involved, the Court was justified in providing the inspection of such DVD/Pen drive only to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert.
Order V Rule 20 CPC | Locked House, Incomplete Address Not Enough To Resort To Newspaper Publication For Summons: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Kanta Devi & Ors. v Parsaram & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 400
The Rajasthan High Court held that when the process server's report reflected a locked house or an incomplete address, it did not by itself justify adopting the substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC, unless the Court was satisfied that the defendant was deliberately evading service and ordinary service was impracticable.
“The Court must apply its mind to the process server's report and the surrounding circumstances and arrive at an informed conclusion that ordinary service cannot reasonably be effected. Such satisfaction may, depending upon the language and circumstances, be inferred from the order itself and need not invariably be expressed in any particular formula. But the record must nevertheless disclose the existence of the judicial satisfaction which the statute requires.”
While setting aside an ex-party decree in a suit of specific performance, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the power to direct the exceptional mode of substituted service under Order V Rule 20, CPC, was not absolute.
'Life Is Short, Litigation Infinite': Rajasthan High Court Orders Disposal Of 63-Year-Old Revenue Case, Warns Of Action For Delay
Title: Jairam v Sub-Division Magistrate and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 401
The Rajasthan High Court ordered disposal of a 63-year-old revenue case in 3 months without any adjournments, holding that in case of failure by the Presiding Officer of revenue court directions will be issued to higher authorities to take appropriate action against the officer including adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report.
While recording “harsh reality of the system prevailing in Revenue Courts Administration System”, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the sole reason for such long pendency was the practice of seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Court held that this situation and work culture had to be changed to move away from unnecessary adjournments.
Handwriting Expert Report Can't Be Introduced At Evidence Stage To Support Forgery Plea Not Taken In Written Statement: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Bihari Lal v Navratanmal Bamb & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 402
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a handwriting expert's report cannot be introduced at the evidence stage to support a forgery plea that was never raised in the written statement, observing that evidence cannot be used to introduce a new factual foundation or defence beyond the pleadings.
A bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that pleadings constitute the foundation of evidence and the opposite party is entitled to know the precise case it is required to meet. Allowing a new factual plea to be introduced for the first time through evidence would cause prejudice to the opposite party.
“The distinction between elaboration of a pleaded case and introduction of a wholly new case cannot be overlooked. Evidence is intended to substantiate the pleadings; it cannot be employed as a device to supply the very foundation which the pleadings themselves do not contain.”
Absence Due To Prolonged Illness Not Wilful Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Termination
Title: Heera Mani v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 403
While setting aside termination order of a deceased-employee, the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur at the Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the absence of an employee owing to a prolonged illness did not amount to wilful absence that could attract imposition of penalty.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Krushnakat B. Parmar v. Union of India in which it was held that,
“…for sustaining allegations of failure to maintain devotion to duty due to absence and conduct unbecoming of government servant and dismissal based thereupon it must be proved that unauthorized absence was willful. If absence is due to compelling circumstances under which it is not possible to report for or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful and employee guilty of misconduct”
Title: Deepak Meena v the Chairman cum Managing Director, JVVNL & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 404
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order imposing penalty on the Zonal Chief Engineer of Jaipur Discom, as well as the appellate order affirming such penalty, since no consideration was given to the contents of the reply in defence that was submitted by him.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma affirmed that merely using the words that the content was considered in the order, was an empty formality and an eye wash. Consideration meant active application of mind as well as thinking over, pondering and weighing the relevant material.
Title: E v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 405
The Rajasthan High Court has held that passport authorities cannot insist a minor, who is in exclusive custody of divorced mother, to produce an undertaking of estranged father's name for renewal of passport, especially when no such document was sought at the time of issuing the passport.
The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma perused all the relevant statutory documents, to conclude that a single mother could apply for a minor's passport on which no name of the father had to be printed, where he had terminated the relationship with the mother.
“The respondents cannot now, at the stage of renewal, arbitrarily reverse this position and insist upon an undertaking, or inclusion of the father's name, by mechanically invoking the clarificatory notification dated 28.02.2023. Such rigid insistence not only disregards the statutory declaration made by the petitioner's mother in Annexure 'C', but also runs contrary to the flexible, fact-specific approach mandated by the Passport Rules and recognised by various High Courts.”
Absence Of Single Voter Can't Stall Election Or Warrant Re-Poll: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Vinita Pooniya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 406
The Rajasthan High Court has held that absence of a single voter at the time of polling could not be treated as an adverse situation warranting postponement of the elections schedule fixed by the State Election Commission and hence could not be a ground for re-polling.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that if such a situation was allowed to trigger re-polling or postponement of election schedule, there would be no end to election and every election would be liable to be postponed on the ground that one or other voter could not vote.
“The concept of re-poll is provided under the Rules of 1994 only when the polling is vitiated by booth capturing, large scale rigging, failure of EVM, riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or natural calamity which affects the free and fair polling. Isolated absence of a single voter does not fall under any of these categories. A voter cannot claim his right to vote after expiry of time fixed for polling.”
The Court further held that if the absentee felt aggrieved and believed that she was deprived of her right to cast vote, she had the liberty to file an election petition.
“As per the mandate contained under Rules 52 and 53 of the Rules of 1994, the polling process can be adjourned only in extreme circumstances where the polling is obstructed or interrupted by riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or natural calamity. The instant case does not fall under any of the above circumstances as described under Rules 52 and 53 of the Rules of 1994.”
Title: Vedprakash v Chittorgarh Central Coop. Bank Ltd. & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the stages of examination, cross-examination, defence evidence or hearing of arguments, as under Rule 16(6)(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (the “Rules”) cannot be avoided merely because the disciplinary authorities considered that documentary or electronic material was sufficient.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur was hearing an appeal against the order of the MD of Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service.
The Court rejected the respondents' argument to the effect that considering the nature of banking transactions, examination of witnesses was not necessary. It was held that such contention could not be accepted to substitute the compliance with procedure, required under Rule 16.
“The Rule does not leave it to the disciplinary authorities to dispense with the stages of examination, cross-examination, defence evidence or hearing of arguments merely because the department considers the documentary or electronic material sufficient. Where the charges are denied, the procedure prescribed by the Rule is required to be followed.”