Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 80 To 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 118

NOMINAL INDEX

Charan Singh Khangarot v Raghunath Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 80

Dr. Vimla Kumawat v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 81

Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 82

Rameshwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 83

Ramprakash Kahrlwa v the Director, Elementary Education & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 84

Vikram Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 85

State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Ashish Saxena & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 86

B v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 87

Aaradhya Verma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 88

Shrutika Chauhan & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 89

Vinit Kumar Adiwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 90

Suo Moto v Akshay Sharma & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 91

Vikram Nath v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 92

Purna Ram v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 93

Rajeev Dutta v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 94

Sumitra v Ashish; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 95

Vijayraj v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 96

Neeraj Sharma v State Bank of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 97

RS & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 98

Kishan Agarwal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 99

Himmat Singh Gehlot v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 100

Gautam v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 101

Subhash Saini v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 102

Narayan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 103

State of Rajasthan v Moola Ram; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 104

Nirmal Dudani v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 105

Khushbu Choudhary v Rajasthan High Court; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 106

Pratap Singh Hada v Rajkumar Jhamb; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 107

Jitendra Meena v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matter; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 108

Sharda Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 109

Ajeet Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 110

Altaf Bano & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 111

Vibhorgolash v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 112

Apoorva Agrawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 113

X v Y; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 114

Ravi Meena v Pushpendra Singh Rathod; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 115

Santosh Dangi v Firm & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 116

Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Others; 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 117

Pratap Singh v/s The Jaipur Development Authority And batch; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 118

Order/Judgments of the Month

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

Title: Charan Singh Khangarot v Raghunath Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 80

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 81

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

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

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

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

Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 82

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

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

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

Title: Rameshwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 83

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 84

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 85

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 86

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

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

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

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

Title: B v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 87

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

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

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

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

Title: Aaradhya Verma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 88

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 89

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

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

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

Title: Vinit Kumar Adiwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 90

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

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

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

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

Title: Suo Moto v Akshay Sharma & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 91

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

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

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

Title: Vikram Nath v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 92

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 93

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 94

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Sumitra v Ashish

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 95

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Vijayraj v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 96

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

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

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

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

Title: Neeraj Sharma v State Bank of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 97

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 98

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

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

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

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

Title: Kishan Agarwal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 99

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

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

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

Title: Himmat Singh Gehlot v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 100

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Gautam v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 101

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 102

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

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

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

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

Title: Narayan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 103

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

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

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

Title: State of Rajasthan v Moola Ram

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 104

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Nirmal Dudani v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 105

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

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

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

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

Title: Khushbu Choudhary v Rajasthan High Court

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 106

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

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

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

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

Title: Pratap Singh Hada v Rajkumar Jhamb

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 107

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 108

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

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

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

Title: Sharda Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 109

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

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

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

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

Title: Ajeet Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 110

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 111

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

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

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

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

Title: Vibhorgolash v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 112

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

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

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

Title: Apoorva Agrawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 113

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

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

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

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

Title: X v Y

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 114

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

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

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

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

Title: Ravi Meena v Pushpendra Singh Rathod

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 115

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Santosh Dangi v Firm & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 116

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

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

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

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

Title: Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Others

Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 117

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Others

Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 117

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 118

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

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

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

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