Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 118

Order/Judgments of the Month

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 2

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

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

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

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

Title: Khurshid v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 3

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

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

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

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

Title: Kailash Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 4

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 5

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

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

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

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

Title: Us@us v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 6

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Pooranmal Yadav v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 7

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

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

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

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

Title: Khartaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 8

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

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

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

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

Title: Manoj v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 10

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 12

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 13

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

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

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

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

Title: Dinesh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 14

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 15

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 16

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

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

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

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

Title: Satu Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 17

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 18

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 19

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

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

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

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

Title: Javari v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 20

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 21

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 22

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 23

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 26

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

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

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

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

Title: Rohit Godara v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 27

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

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

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

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

Title: Gopal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 28

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 29

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

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

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

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

Title: Ayasha Chouhan v Waseem Khan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 30

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

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

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

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

Title: Devendra Kumar Kothari v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 31

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 32

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

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

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

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

Title: Vatsal Bindal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 33

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 34

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

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

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

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

Title: Rajesh Kushwah v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 35

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

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

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

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

Title: Rajesh Kushwah v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 35

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

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

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

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

Title: Kesar Devi v Guddi Devi & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 36

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

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

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

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

Title: Amit Rathor v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 37

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 38

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

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

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

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

Title: Urban Improvement Trust v Poonam Chand

Citation: 2026 Live Law (Raj) 39

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

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

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

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

Title: Rajeev Bhandari v Jodhpur Development authority & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 40

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 41

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 42

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

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

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

Title: Vivek Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 43

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

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

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

Title: Ritu Khatri v Navneet Khanna

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 44

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Devkrishna & Ors. v Kaluram & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 45

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 46

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Hans Raj v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 47

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Vimal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 48

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

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

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

Title: Aryan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 49

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 50

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 51

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Divik Ostwal v Ambika Jain and other connected petition

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 52

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

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

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

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

Title: Lajendra Singh v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 53

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 54

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

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

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

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

Title: Laxman Kumawat v Madan Singh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 55

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

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

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

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

Title: Smt. Gulab Devi v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 56

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

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

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

Title: KC Jain v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 57

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 58

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

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

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

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

Title: Dekaran Singh v Pyare Lal & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 59

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

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

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

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

Title: Mohan Singh v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 60

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 61

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 62

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

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

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

Title: Jai Kishan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 63

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

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

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

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

Title: Himmat Singh Gehlot v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 64

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 65

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

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

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

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

Title: Mahaveer v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 66

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

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

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

Title: M.r. College of Physiotherapy

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 67

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 68

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 69

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

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

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

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

Title: Fateh Mohammad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 70

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 71

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

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

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

Title: Sunil v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 72

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

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

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

Title: Atal Khandelwal v Institute of Health Management Research

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 73

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 74

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

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

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

Title: Smt. Khushboo v Manohar

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 75

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 76

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

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

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

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

Title: Govaram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 77

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

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

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

Title: Soma v State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 78

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

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

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

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

Title: Roop Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 79

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

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

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

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".