Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 119 To 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 160

NOMINAL INDEX

Dr. Parnika Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 119

Ranveer Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 120

Supriya v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 121

Navin Temani v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 122

Pradeep Gupta v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 123

Dr. Tejpal Katewa v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 124

Bishan Lal & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 125

Mohan Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 126

Vikram Sharma & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 127

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Ors. v Hansraj Sharma; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 128

Mangtu Ram & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 129

Kaushlya Soni v Ravikant Soni, and other connected appeals; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 130

Deepa Ram Meghwal v/s State of Rajasthan & Others and Batch; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 131

Anuj Kumar & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 132

Prashant Kaushik & ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 133

S d/o A v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 134

Hema v Mohit Bhardwaj; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 135

Jhalkan Singh Rathore & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 136

Bhupendra Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 137

Narayan Bairwa & Ors. v District Manager, Food Corporation of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 138

Krishan Gopal Kumawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 139

Smt. Pushpa & Anr. v Hemraj & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 140

Jogendra Pal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 141

Arvind Kumar v Smt. Namita; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 142

Istikhar Khan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 143

Shyam Lal v Senior Chemist, Public Health and Engineering Department & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 144

Federation Of Private Medical And Dental College Of Rajasthan v Chairman, Neet PG & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 145

Vijay Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 146

Anil Kumar Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 147

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat v Shri Banshi Lal; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 148

Chetan Prakash Sharma v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 149

Chimna Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 150

Narayan Lal Rebari & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 151

NM v AK; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 152

Priyanka & Ors. v Swarn Singh & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 153

Mahesh Tiwari v The State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 154

PD Gurjar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 155

Bhuriya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 156

Shankar & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 157

Ashok Kumar Saini v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 158

Sunil Kumar Yadav v Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 159

Jagdish v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 160

Anil Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 161

Jagdish Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 162

Smt. Guddi Bai v Raghuveer; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 163

Order/Judgments of the Month

Rajasthan High Court Directs Admission Of NEET-PG Candidate Denied For Want Of Permanent Registration Certificate

Title: Dr. Parnika Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 119

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a doctor who was denied admission in the college allotted through NEET-PG 2025, on the ground of not possessing the original Permanent Registration Certificate issued by the Chhattisgarh Medical Council, in light of Clause 4.6 of the NEET-PG 2025 Information Bulletin.

While making a reference to Regulation 8(3) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (PGM 2000) that grants one month period after admission to obtain such registration, the bench of Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati held that administrative/executive instruction/information bulletins could not override statutory regulations.

“This reflects a purposive legislative intent aimed at preventing undue hardship to the meritorious candidates, who may be in the process of obtaining permanent registration at the relevant point of time…action of the respondents in denying admission to the petitioner solely on the ground of non-production of the Permanent Registration Certificate at the time of reporting is arbitrary, and in direct contravention of Regulation 8 (3) of the Regulations of 2000, as well as the governing framework under the NMC notification Dated 29.12.2023.”

Repeated Custodial Transfers Strain Police, Exchequer: Rajasthan High Court Permits Accused Booked In 100+ FIRs To Attend Trials Via VC

Title: Ranveer Singh & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 120

While allowing the petitioners, accused in over 100 FIRs to appear in proceedings through video conferencing, Rajasthan High Court specified the practical difficulties in cases where an accused was implicated in hundreds of FIRs, including systemic implications of repeated inter-state custodial production.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that in such circumstances, unless there were compelling reasons requiring in-person presence, feasibility of securing appearance through video conferencing deserved serious consideration.

“If the presence of the accused is not in dispute and identification is not a matter of contest, and the sole object is to secure a formal appearance, the question that arises is whether the mechanical issuance of production warrants, entailing the physical transportation of the accused with a sizeable escort, is justified in every case. When such exercise becomes a recurring monthly ritual, four times a month or every week, the cumulative financial and administrative burden is substantial.”

FIR Wrongly Quashed For All On Partial Compromise: Rajasthan High Court Recalls Order, Differentiates It From Review

Title: Supriya v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 121

While exercising its power to recall, Rajasthan High Court set aside its order that inadvertently quashed an entire FIR based on a compromise that was reached between the complainant and only two accused, and granted liberty to the investigating agency to proceed against remaining accused in accordance with law.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that rectification of such inadvertent error by recalling relevant portion of the order did not amount to exercising review. Rather, it was a legitimate exercise of court's inherent authority to correct accidental or clerical mistakes to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail In 'Digital Arrest' Case Involving ₹80 Lakh Fraud On 83-Year-Old

Title: Navin Temani v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 122

The Rajasthan High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by a “key conspirator” in an international cyber fraud racket that involved digital arrest of an 83-year old woman who was deceived and coerced into transferring her entire savings of around Rs. 80 Lakhs from her bank account.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain rejected the plea of compromise put forth by the petitioner on the ground that firstly the claimed compromise was not even signed by the accused himself but by his father. Further, it was held that the gravity of the offence had a larger societal impact.

The Court further exercised its inherent jurisdiction to grant relief to the 83-year old complainant who had contended suffering due to acute financial hardships, and directed the trial court to release the seized amount of around Rs. 13 lakhs to her, on suitable terms and conditions, within 7 days.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Unreasoned Suspension Order By RSRTC Officer, Bars Her From Discharging Duty Until Legal Training

Title: Pradeep Gupta v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 123

Quashing an unreasoned order passed by the Executive Officer (traffic) of State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) concerning suspension of a worker, the Rajasthan High Court directed the DoP's Principle Secretary to ensure that the concerned officer was given training about the procedure and legal principles.

While underscoring the significance of a reasoned order, the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain further directed that the officer shall not be allowed to discharge her duty relating to management of human resources in RSRTC, until the aforementioned training was complete.

Civil Services Rules | 'Awaiting Posting Orders' Can't Be Used To Bypass Disciplinary Process For Alleged Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Dr. Tejpal Katewa v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 124

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the Awaiting Posting Order (APO) against the petitioner who was accused of misconduct, opining that the lawful course of the action was to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, instead of bypassing the same by invoking APO order under Rule 25A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (RSR).

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that this was a classic case of colourable exercise of power that undermined rule of law and procedural safeguards of a public servant, and was also hit by the doctrine of malice in law since the power was exercised for an extraneous purpose as compared to its object.

“…Rule 25A has been invoked ostensibly for administrative purposes, but in reality, to deal with alleged misconduct of the petitioner. This constitutes a classic case of malice in law, as the power has been exercised for an extraneous purpose…The emphasis, therefore, is not on the state of mind of the authority but on the legality of the purpose for which the power is exercised. If a statutory authority acts without lawful justification or for a purpose alien to the statute, such action is vitiated by malice in law.”

Rajasthan HC Quashes 'Organ Removal' Case Against Shelter Home, Says Culpable Homicide Charge Impossible When Act Alleged On Dead Body

Title: Bishan Lal & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 125

The Rajasthan High Court quashed the cognizance for culpable homicide not amounting to murder taken against a charitable home shelter working for the destitute, accused of illegal organ removal, by the family member of a person who was rescued by the society. It was opined that the charges were legally unsustainable and based on mere speculations.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted the admitted position of complainant that his brother had died of natural causes but was subject to organ removal by the petitioners thereafter, and opined that if an act was committed on a dead body, it could not be culpable homicide since the victim had already passed, and the essential requirement of attempting to cause death of a living human was missing.

“…308 IPC applies to the acts committed against a living person with the intention or knowledge that such acts would cause death of the person. It is quite surprising that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners with the allegation that after the death of the deceased-Sitaram, an attempt was made to cause his death by way of removing organs from his body.”

'Profound Invasion Of Privacy': Rajasthan High Court Directs Centre, Meta To Remove 'Obscene Images' Of Minor From Instagram

Title: Mohan Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 126

While directing Centre to coordinate with Meta Platforms to remove "obscene and private images" of a minor boy from social media, the Rajasthan High Court observed that dissemination of private and intimate content without consent was not only a legal wrong, but a "profound invasion of dignity and irreversible consequences".

Underscoring the far-reaching, compounding and deeply invasive consequences of such unauthorized circulation, Justice Farjand Ali in his order observed that while intermediaries are afforded conditional immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, a principle commonly understood as the doctrine of “safe harbour” however such immunity is neither absolute nor unqualified.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the far-reaching consequences of such instances, calling it a “digital scar” which was not confined to the moment of initial publication but was like a permanent imprint on life, dignity and identity.

The Court held that the injury caused due to such instances not only took a psychological and emotional toll on the victim, but also had many social ramifications like stigma, ostracization, and loss of social standing that extended to any individual irrespective of gender, affecting personal relationship, professional opportunities, and overall standing in society.

“The scope of such objectionable content, as can be gathered, extends to material over which the user has no lawful entitlement, content that offends decency or morality, invades the privacy of individuals, or tends to harass or demean persons on impermissible grounds. It further encompasses content which may facilitate unlawful activities or disturb societal harmony by fostering hostility between different sections of the community.”

Plea Of Alibi Can't Be Considered At Stage Of Cognizance Under S.319 CrPC: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vikram Sharma & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 127

The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a plea challenging cognizance taken by the District Court against the petitioners-accused for rioting and murder, opining that the plea of alibi cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance, and it had to be proved by the accused at the appropriate stage of defence.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage more than prima facie case is required to be seen against the accused not charge-sheeted. The merits and the defence of the accused cannot be appreciated at this initial stage of taking cognizance. The defence, so put by the accused, with regard to his plea of alibi that they were not present at the place of occurrence would be taken into account by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage of trial. There is much more prima facie evidence available on the record for summoning them to face the trial.”

Industrial Tribunal Allowing Legal Representation To Workman But Not Employer “Manifest Inequality”: Rajasthan High Court

Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Ors. v Hansraj Sharma

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 128

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that Industrial Disputes Tribunal permitting the workman to be legally represented while denying the same representation to opposite party–the industry, amounts to "manifest inequality" violating principles of natural justice.

In doing so the court quashed Industrial Disputes Tribunal's order wherein workman's application under Section 36 Industrial Disputes Act, prohibiting AIIMS, Jodhpur to secure legal representation was allowed. Section 36 regulates representation of parties in industrial adjudication to maintain informality, as per which representation by a legal practitioner was permissible with the consent of the other party and with the leave of the Tribunal.

“…the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that discretion under Section 36 of the Act of 1947 must be exercised on sound judicial principles. Therefore, in the light of the fact that the respondent was effectively availing legal assistance; no prejudice would have been caused by permitting the petitioners to be represented through counsel.”

'Only Prima-Facie Case Needed At Summoning Stage': Rajasthan High Court Upholds Cognizance Order Against In-Laws In Dowry Death FIR

Title: Mangtu Ram & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 129

Rajasthan High Court dismissed a plea against a trial court order taking cognizance against a woman's in-laws under Section 498A IPC, observing that at the stage of summoning there has to be only prima facie satisfaction and that the allegations of dowry demands, torture by the in-laws were sufficient to proceed against them.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that at the stage of summoning of accused, there had to be just prima facie satisfaction of the Court.

The court said that while the petitioners' allegation that the deceased was suffering from Bipolar Disorder, though no such evidence was placed before the trial court, and whether this was the reason behind the suicide cannot be adjudicated by the high court at this stage. This fact, the court said, would be appreciated by the Trial Court at appropriate stage of the trial.

Rajasthan High Court Converts S.24 HMA Appeals Into Writ Petitions Amid Uncertainty On Maintainability; Says Justice Cannot Wait

Title: Kaushlya Soni v Ravikant Soni, and other connected appeals

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 130

In the background of uncertainty on the question of maintainability of appeals against orders passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (1955 Act), the Rajasthan High Court converted the pending appeals to writ petitions to ensure expeditious disposal and speedy justice.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that the issue of maintainability being the subject of the pending reference had a direct bearing on the jurisdiction of the Court to decide the appeals. At the same time, it was stated that the principle of justice delayed justice denied, could not be ignored.

“In such a situation, judicial discipline and propriety require that we refrain from rendering a determination which may pre-empt or conflict with the decision to be rendered by the Larger Bench. Accordingly, the question relating to jurisdiction and maintainability ought to await its determination thereof by the Larger Bench, upon resolution of the reference and not by us.”

Rajasthan High Court Asks State To Frame Policy Curbing Khap Panchayat 'Diktats', Says Social Boycott Violates Citizens' Fundamental Rights

Title: Deepa Ram Meghwal v/s State of Rajasthan & Others and Batch

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 131

The Rajasthan High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State Government including formulation of a policy and Standard Operating Procedure to ensure comprehensive adjudication of complaints by citizens against "diktats" and "social boycott orders" issued by Khap Panchayats.

In doing so the court highlighted that Khaps "have been a deeply concerning practice appears to be prevalent in certain rural settings" wherein a group of influential persons who have no lawful authority, assume themselves to be an extra-legal governing body. These bodies, acting in the guise of a “panchayat” or association, issue diktats to the villagers at large, mandating a complete social and economic boycott of a particular individual or family.

"Any extra-constitutional authority or informal body assuming the power to impose such sanctions is wholly impermissible in the eyes of law. The absence of a dedicated legislation in the State of Rajasthan has resulted in a regulatory vacuum, leading to ineffective prevention, inadequate prosecution, and continued perpetration of social boycott practices. The situation, thus, warrants serious consideration at the legislative and executive level, so that an appropriate legal framework may be put in place to effectively address and eradicate this pernicious practice," the court said.

The court directed that the State Government shall endeavour to finalize the policy and SOP within a reasonable period of time. Once formulated, the policy and SOP shall be circulated widely to all concerned authorities and shall be given due publicity, so as to ensure awareness, effective implementation, and strict compliance at all levels.

'Manifest Infirmity': Rajasthan High Court Criticizes Sessions Court For Reversing 'Well-Reasoned' Discharge Of Theft Accused

Title: Anuj Kumar & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 132

While discharging accused in a theft case, Rajasthan High Court affirmed that even though a detailed order was not obligatory at the stage of framing of charges the order must reflect conscious application of judicial mind and cannot be cryptic or mechanical.

In doing so the court ruled that the Sessions Court order which set aside the discharge of the petitioners was manifestly infirm as it did not indicate any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the findings recorded trial Court.

"The distinction, therefore, is not merely lexical but substantive: while mere suspicion is conjectural and infirm, grave suspicion is grounded in material particulars and carries legal weight sufficient to justify continuation of criminal proceedings. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is constrained to observe that the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court suffers from manifest infirmities. The learned revisional Court, while reversing the well reasoned order of discharge, has failed to indicate any perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. There is a conspicuous absence of independent analysis of the material on record".

Magistrate Can't Mechanically Order FIR Against Public Servants Without Following S.223 BNSS Safeguards: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Prashant Kaushik & ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 133

The Rajasthan High Court has held that Magistrate cannot under Section 175(3) BNSS mechanically direct registration of FIR against public servants over acts committed in discharge of their official duties, without following the statutory safeguards provided under Section 223(2) BNSS.

In doing so the court underscored that Section 223(2) is a substantive safeguard so that criminal law is not used as a tool of vendetta.

Setting aside the Special Court's directions to register FIR against petitioner-police officials, Justice Farjand Ali held that the object of Section 223(2) BNSS was to balance the right of a complainant to seek redressal and the necessity to shield public servants from undue harassment.

'Shocking': Rajasthan High Court Slams Rejection Of Minor Rape Survivor's Compensation Claim On Technical Grounds

Title: S d/o A v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 134

While expressing shock and surprise, Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) that rejected a minor rape victim's application for interim compensation, and asking her to get requisite certificate from the SHO/Magistrate.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme 2011 (“Scheme”) was not followed by the respondent in its letter and spirit, and opined that instead of rejecting the application, DLSA should have asked the concerned authority to send the required certificate.

The Court then passed a general direction for Rajasthan State Legal Service Authority (RSLSA) and all DLSAs to adopt a uniform policy for distribution of the amount, as interim and final compensation for rape victims, instead of insisting them to get certificate from the SHO or court.

Family Courts Can't Transfer Cases, Power Lies Only With HC Or District Court Under Section 24 CPC: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Hema v Mohit Bhardwaj

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 135

The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that family courts lack the power to transfer cases from one family court to another within the same district as Section 24 CPC only empowers District Courts or High Courts to transfer cases.

Section 24 CPC states, that High Court or District Court can while acting on an application or suo motu, transfer, withdraw, or re-transfer suits, appeals, or other proceedings pending before it or any subordinate court.

"Family Court lacks jurisdiction to transfer cases from one Family Court to another even within same District and Section 24 CPC empowers only the District Court or the High Court, not Family Courts to transfer cases. Since, Family Courts are governed by their own special statutes and no such power to transfer cases is conferred upon them, the Family Court cannot exercise powers of transfer under Section 24 CPC"

'Competition Must Be Among Equals': Rajasthan High Court Says Home Guard Selection Can't Pit Experienced Volunteers Against Fresh Candidates

Title: Jhalkan Singh Rathore & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 136

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to a bunch of Home Guards who were allegedly terminated orally, by opining that in relation to new recruitment, if the petitioners were already having some experience as volunteers in Home Guards Department, they were required to be screen initially and if found eligible, to be taken into services.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman held that even though the screening itself did not confer any right on the petitioner, the right to be considered, if the Government chose to fill up the volunteers in the Home Guards Department, lied with the petitioners. It was held that such screening had to be among the petitioners only.

“If the petitioners are already having some experience by engaging them as volunteers in the Home Guards Department and if the Government chooses to fill up any vacancies available for recruitment to the post of volunteers in the Home Guards Department, the petitioners are required to be screened initially and whoever is found eligible for recruitment, they are required to be taken into services.”

Accused Can't Be Denied Effective Cross-Examination Due To Counsel's Absence: Rajasthan High Court Permits Recall Of Eyewitness

Title: Bhupendra Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 137

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to a murder-accused who was unable to effectively cross-examine an eye-witness, owing to the absence of his counsel on the particular day, by accepting the recall application filed by the accused, which was initially rejected by the trial court.

While terming the order of the trial court as “overly technical”, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that even though the opportunity to cross examine the said witness was granted to the accused, it stood vitiated since the counsel was not present.

The Court opined that a lay accused could not be expected to conduct the cross-examination with same skills as that of a trained legal practitioner.

“The absence of counsel on the relevant date cannot be viewed in isolation or with pedantic rigidity, particularly when the consequence of such absence results in the deprivation of a meaningful defence. A lay accused cannot be expected to unravel inconsistencies, test veracity, or impeach the credibility of a crucial eyewitness with the same dexterity as a trained legal practitioner.”

Once Reference Is Accepted, Should Be Decided On Merits: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Labour Court Order Rejecting Reference As Defective

Title: Narayan Bairwa & Ors. v District Manager, Food Corporation of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 138

The Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the Labour Court which had dismissed a reference as defective after spending 20 years on its adjudication, opining that once a reference was accepted the Labour Court was duty bound to answer it on its merits.

Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a plea wherein the petitioners had alleged that they were orally terminated from employment by respondent Food Corporation of India. Pursuant to failure of the conciliation, the Government examined the failure report and after considering existence of an Industrial Dispute, made a reference before the Labour Court.

In the present case, the Labour Court accepted the reference for adjudication. Once such reference is accepted, the Labour Court is duty bound to answer the reference. Any shortcoming in the reference has to be read along with the evidence led by the parties. The Labour Court ought to have decided the claim on the basis of evidence on record and ought to have adjudicated the matter on merits instead of dismissing the reference holding that it is defective".

'Abuse Of Process' To Pressurise Govt Officials: Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Contempt Plea Over False Transfer Claim With ₹5,000 Costs

Title: Krishan Gopal Kumawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 139

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a contempt petition with a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner for filing false and misleading information regarding compliance of an order passed by the coordinate bench of the Court.

The petitioner had claimed that the coordinate bench decision directed the Registrar Board of Revenue to transfer the petitioner from Education department to Revenue Department.

However, based on the perusal of records, Justice Ravi Chirania highlighted that no such order was passed by the coordinate bench, and opined that the petitioner had furnished false and misleading information about the Court's order.

No Contributory Negligence For Riding Without Licence Or With Two Pillion Riders Unless Directly Linked To Accident: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Smt. Pushpa & Anr. v Hemraj & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 140

The Rajasthan High Court held that the mere act of riding a motorcycle without having a valid license and with 2 pillion riders might be a violation of Motor Vehicles Rules, but such acts by themselves could not be a basis to assume contributory negligence of the deceased in an accident unless there was a specific finding to that effect.

Justice Sandeep Taneja further affirmed that since the deceased was a barber, his monthly income had to be calculated based on the minimum wages of a skilled worker and not that of an unskilled one, considering that under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the State Government had treated a barber as a skilled worker.

“…despite concluding that deceased was not at fault in the accident, the learned Tribunal attributed contributory negligence to him merely because he did not have a valid driving license and was riding the motorcycle alongwith two pillion riders… this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in holding the deceased liable for contributory negligence.”

Magistrate May Seek Police Assistance Under Section 225 BNSS To Probe Complaint Without Ordering FIR: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Jogendra Pal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 141

Rajasthan High Court has held that under Section 225 BNSS before issuing process, a Magistrate can–without ordering an FIR, direct a police officer or any other person who he thinks fit to conduct an investigation on a complaint to decide if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.

The court observed that this investigation under Section 225 BNSS is "an extension of the Magistrate's inquiry" and not a substitute for police investigation under Section 175 BNSS, wherein the purpose of the former is to assist the Magistrate in concluding his inquiry before issuing process.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further observed that “investigation” used in Section 225 did not mean a "full-fledged police investigation", neither it authorized exercise of coercive powers like arrest or filing of charge sheet. Rather, it led to a discreet report or factual input to aid the Magistrate in forming his opinion for proceeding further.

“A significant and progressive departure introduced under the BNSS is the incorporation of a participatory safeguard, whereby the proposed accused is accorded a limited right of hearing at the pre-process stage. This innovation seeks to infuse procedural fairness and to prevent mechanical issuance of process without due application of mind, thereby strengthening the balance between the rights of the complainant and the proposed accused.”

S.94 BNSS | Husband Can Seek Wife's Employment Records To Oppose Maintenance Claim: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Arvind Kumar v Smt. Namita

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 142

Rajasthan High Court has held that a husband can seek his estranged wife's employment records under Section 94 BNSS in order to oppose her maintenance claim, reiterating Supreme Court's 2020 judgment which held that either of the parties may seek production of relevant documents from the other party.

In doing so the court allowed a man's application under Section 94 BNSS before the trial court seeking disclosure of wife's earnings who was stated to be working as a nurse at a Private hospital, on the ground that the same were not disclosed by her in the maintenance proceedings.

While setting aside the decision of trial court that had rejected the husband's application, the bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the information sought was relevant for fair adjudication, and since the concerned hospital where the wife was working was a private institution, Section 94 was clearly attracted.

S.82 CrPC | Absconder Tag Can't Be Invoked Without Exhausting All Reasonable Steps To Secure Presence Of Accused: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Istikhar Khan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 143

Granting relief to a man declared absconder in a cheque bounce case for irregular appearances and failing to follow bail conditions, Rajasthan High Court has said that the absconder tag cannot be invoked without following "all reasonable steps" to secure the accused's presence.

In doing so the court granted the petitioner one more chance to appear and stayed the order issuing a permanent arrest warrant and initiating proceedings declaring him absconder, under Sections 82(Proclamation for person absconding) and 83(Attachment of property of person absconding) CrPC until then.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that the trial court decision seemed 'hasty', without exhaustion of all reasonable and efficacious steps to secure accused's presence.

Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Consider Regularising Employee After 28 Years Of Service, Says Ad-Hoc Appointment Can't Defeat Claim

Title: Shyam Lal v Senior Chemist, Public Health and Engineering Department & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 144

Rajasthan High Court granted benefit to an employee who despite having rendered services for more than 28 years, was not being considered for regularization by the government on the ground that his initial appointment was not towards any sanctioned post, but on an ad-hoc basis.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that the State's plea of petitioner not being engaged on a sanctioned post but only for discharging overburden of work was already considered by the Labour Court, post which petitioner's termination on an earlier occasion was held to be illegal.

In this background, the Court held that the fact remained that the petitioner was still in employment for more than 2 decades, and was denied the right to be considered for regularization, which required Court's interference.

Reservation Granted In One State Can't Be Extended To Another, Backward Classes May Not Share Same Social Realities: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Federation Of Private Medical And Dental College Of Rajasthan v Chairman, Neet PG & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 145

The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that benefit of reservation granted in one state cannot be extended to reserved category candidates belonging to another state, noting that one cannot assume that backward classes across different States "share identical or even comparable social realities".

The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit who was hearing a petition filed by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan regarding reservation in allocation of seats in NEET PG said:

"On a conjoint reading of the constitutional scheme discussed above, the statutory scheme of the Act of 2008 as well as the provisions of PGMER-2023, it becomes evident that castes, races and tribes are classified as SCs, STs, BCs, SBCs or OBCs in relation to each individual states. Such classification and notification are based on the unique socio-economic and cultural realities of that specific region, and the corresponding policy decisions governing reservation are necessarily informed by these State-specific considerations. It cannot be assumed, nor is it capable of empirical determination, that backward classes across different States share identical or even comparable social realities. A necessary corollary of this position is that the benefits of reservation are confined to categories notified in relation to a particular State and cannot be extended to members who are recognised as belonging to a reserved category in another State".

NDPS Act | Correctness Of Recovery, Arrest Memos Must Be Tested At Trial, Not In Writ: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vijay Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 146

While rejecting a quashing petition in relation to an NDPS case rested upon the disputed authenticity and credibility of seizure and arrest memos, the Rajasthan High Court held that such aspects pertaining to credibility, trustworthiness and evidentiary value of the documents prepared during investigation could not be conclusively adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that as per judicial propriety where the trial was underway, higher courts ought to refrain from recording definitive findings on factual controversies that were sub-judice. Any interference amounted to disrupting procedural sanctity of trial and could prejudice either of the parties.

Termination Without Enquiry, Followed By Post-Facto Revocation 'Unknown To Law': Rajasthan High Court Slaps Costs On State

Title: Anil Kumar Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 147

The Rajasthan High Court has criticized the State's action in terminating a contractual employee without enquiry, followed by a post-facto enquiry lading to revocation of termination.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman observed that the entire procedure adopted by the concerned authority was unknown to law and had caused undue hardship and mental agony to the Petitioner. It thus imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on the respondents to be given to the petitioner.

“…the entire procedure adopted by the respondents-Authority is unknown to the law. There cannot be any stigmatic termination by ordering an enquiry. Basing on such enquiry, revocation of such a termination order is passed. An illegal procedure has been adopted which is unknown to law.”

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Reinstatement Despite Alleged Illegal Appointment, Cites Violation Of Industrial Disputes Act Procedure

Title: Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat v Shri Banshi Lal

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 148

The Rajasthan High Court rejected petition challenging reinstatement of a daily wage worker who was alleged to have been appointed illegally, opining that non-compliance with mandatory procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act had to be followed for termination of the concerned employee.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a petition filed by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Thated, challenging the order of the Labour Court that had allowed reinstatement of the respondent ex-parte, and the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the order was dismissed.

Govt Department Can't Terminate Outsourced Employee; Can Only Recommend Action To Agency: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chetan Prakash Sharma v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 149

The Rajasthan High Court has held an employee working with government through an outsourcing agency can't be terminated by the department and the proper recourse is to request or recommend action to the concerned agency.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman made the observation while dealing with a case where the Petitioner was working as State Coordinator E-Governance under Rashtriya Gram Swaraja Abhiyan of the Panchayati Raj Department, through an outsourcing agency, and his services were terminated by the concerned department.

The Court noted that instead of approaching the agency with the grievance, the government had directly terminated the petitioner treating him as their employee.

Section 311 CrPC Doesn't Permit Indefinite Delay Where Witnesses Remain Unavailable: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Closure Of Evidence

Title: Chimna Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 150

The Rajasthan High Court has held that when despite all efforts, presence of witnesses summoned under Section 311 CrPC could not be secured, trial court was justified in closing such evidence, thereby preventing efforts that would have resulted in prolonging the trial indefinitely.

The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu further held that a criminal trial is conducted by the State through public prosecutor, and the role of the victim/informant was limited to assisting the public prosecutor and could not be extended to claiming independent or overriding right to conduct or control the prosecution.

Section 311 CrPC | Court Can Summon Material Witness Even If Prosecution Doesn't: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Narayan Lal Rebari & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 151

While allowing an application filed under Section 311 CrPC, Rajasthan High Court held that merely because a material witness was not cited by the prosecution, could not be a ground to deny the opportunity to the accused to summon such witness, when his/her evidence appeared relevant and necessary for a just decision in the case.

The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu was hearing a petition challenging the order of the district court that had rejected petitioner-accused's application under Section 311 CrPC, seeking summoning of the doctor who had prepared the injury reports in the case.

“Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned trial court that it is solely the prerogative of the prosecution to decide which witnesses are to be examined, overlooks the true scope and object of Section 311 Cr.P.C., which empowers the Court itself to summon any witness if his evidence appears necessary for the just adjudication of the case.”

Husband Obtaining Divorce Decree From Foreign Court Without Informing Wife Constitutes Cruelty: Rajasthan High Court

Title: NM v AK

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 152

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a husband obtaining an ex-parte divorce decree from a foreign court without informing the wife, amounts to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal further affirmed that in the present case, the ex-parte decree of divorce passed by a Court in California, USA, could not be relied upon since no certified copy of the same as proved by the husband, and the wife was not given effective opportunity to contest the same.

"Our opinion, ibid, is based on the decisive factor informing us about the conceded circumstance that the respondent-husband secured an ex parte decree of divorce from a court in the United States way back in 2015. The appellant-wife asserts that she became aware of this development only in 2018. Regardless of the precise timeline of such knowledge, the factual significance of this event unliterally by husband cannot be understated. The husband's act of one-sidedly dissolving the marriage abroad is a clear and unequivocal manifestation of his intention to sever the marital bond, apart from leaving the wife shocked, which is nothing but an act of cruelty upon her".

HRA, Other Allowances Forming Part Of Deceased's Income Must Be Included To Calculate Motor Accident Compensation: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Priyanka & Ors. v Swarn Singh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 153

Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the amount paid to the deceased in his income towards Higher Duties allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Washing allowance etc., cannot be deducted while calculating accident compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

While enhancing the compensation to the claimants, the bench of Justice Sandeep Taneja held that the district judge was not justified in deducting such amount while calculating the compensation towards the loss of dependency.

"In view of the law expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in deducting the amount from the monthly salary of the deceased which was being paid to him towards Higher Duties Allowance (HDA), City Compensatory Allowance (CCA), House Rent Allowance (HRA), washing allowance, other misc. allowances. Therefore, the above allowances would be part of the income of the deceased, for the purpose of calculating the compensation towards loss of dependency".

Reverse Burden U/S 139 NI Act Strengthens Fair Trial Rights: Rajasthan High Court Orders FSL Exam Of Disputed Cheque Signatures

Title: Mahesh Tiwari v The State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 154

The Rajasthan High Court has held that since Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a presumption in favour of the cheque holder and places the burden on the accused to rebut that presumption, the right to a fair trial assumes greater significance. The Court observed that where the accused is required to disprove liability, fair and adequate opportunities to defend oneself must be protected more strongly.

“Since the presumption is in favour of the holder, it is for the accused to disprove his guilt. In such a scenario, naturally the right to fair trial becomes stronger. Thus, this right deserves to be protected more strongly and emphatically than in ordinary criminal offences under the Penal Code, 1860.”

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Case U/S 498A IPC Against Sister-In-Law, Says Relatives Often Implicated In 'Heat Of Moment'

Title: PD Gurjar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 155

While quashing cognizance under Section 498A, IPC, against the married sister-in-law of the deceased, Rajasthan High Court observed that it was common that most of the matrimonial complaints were filed in the heat of the moment, wherein the relatives of far-relation were also implicated as accused.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that ordinarily, in matrimonial disputes, the women was subjected to physical violence only by her husband or parents-in-law and married sister-in-law was unlikely to join her brother in demanding dowry from his wife.

“She had nothing to gain from the case or articles of dowry or the articles alleged to have been given by the parents of the deceased to her husband or her in-laws. Therefore, there would be no good reasons for her to intervene in a matter of dowry and harm and harass her sister-in law (the deceased).”

Rajasthan High Court Grants Parole To Life Convict Despite Absconding History, Cites Long Incarceration

Title: Bhuriya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 156

While allowing application for parole of a murder convict with a history of absconding, Rajasthan High Court held that the word “ordinarily” used in Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, reflected that the ineligibility under the Rule had to be seen considering all facts and circumstances of a case.

For context, Rule 14 prescribes classes of prisoners who will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma held that if certain ineligibility was mentioned under the first part of Rule 14, the Court were free to consider the facts and circumstances in the appropriate case.

Citing Manusmriti, Rajasthan High Court Allows Recall Of Prosecutrix In Rape Case After Marriage With Accused; Considers Interest Of Child

Title: Shankar & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 157

Rajasthan High Court allowed application of rape accused to recall the victim and her mother for re-examination in light of changed circumstances of marriage between the accused and the victim as well as a daughter being born out of their wedlock.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if the statements of the victim and mother were not recorded again, it would destroy the matrimonial life of the victim and the accused, as well as the future of their daughter.

While quoting Manusmriti, the Court held that Courts were not mere abiters of breakdown of marriage, but also guardians of marriage, especially when children were born out of it.

“After marriage of the petitioner with the prosecutrix, if any child has born from their wedlock, then it is the duty of the petitioner to protect both the prosecutrix and the child and they cannot be left unprotected. At present, the trial is still going on and if the prosecutrix is recalled, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution and to any other person. As such, this Court can invoke the power provided under Section 311 of Cr.P.C for recalling of these witnesses.”

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Recovery From Employee Over Missing Stock, Says Misappropriation Allegations Require Disciplinary Proceedings

Title: Ashok Kumar Saini v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 158

The Rajasthan High Court has held that when there is any serious misconduct on part of employee resulting in financial loss to the employer, the latter ought to initiate appropriate proceedings as permissible under the regulations, rather than ordering recovery solely on verification report.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a petition filed by government employee who was working as a Mechanic with Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC). A physical verification of stock was conducted by the authority in which 8 tyres and 6 rims were found missing.

“…there is a serious charge of misappropriation. When there is any serious misconduct which resulting in financial loss to the respondents, the respondents ought to have initiated appropriate proceedings as permissible under the regulations. In the present case, simply basing on the verification report, a show cause notice has been issued and after submission of petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice, the impugned order of recovery has been passed.”

Appellate Authority Can't Enhance Punishment In Employee's Own Appeal Without Following Due Procedure: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Sunil Kumar Yadav v Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 159

The Rajasthan High Court has held that an appellate authority under the disciplinary rules of an organisation cannot enhance the punishment in an appeal filed by the delinquent in his/her own interest.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a petition challenging the order of the disciplinary authority as well as that of the appellate authority that enhanced the punishment of the petitioner in an appeal filed by him against the first order.

“The appellate powers are exercisable upon the appeal filed by aggrieved party…Since the provision as referred above enables the appellate authority to enhance the punishment, it does not mean that the appellate authority can enhance the punishment in the appeal filed by the delinquent against his own interest.”

In relation to Regulation 16 as referred to by the State, the Court observed that to be able to exercise power under this, the court first had to take suo moto cognizance. It was highlighted that in the present matter, there was no record to show that such cognizance was taken by the appellate authority before passing order for enhancing the punishment.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Legal Services Authority To Arrange Treatment For Convict's Daughter, Declines Repeated Parole

Title: Jagdish v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 160

While dismissing a convict's plea for emergent parole for his daughter's treatment at AIIMS, the Rajasthan High Court directed the District Legal Service Authority, Sirhoi, to make suitable arrangement for her treatment at Sirohi or at appropriate centre.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma observed that considering the fact that petitioner's daughter was suffering from a psychiatric disorder, she would require regular treatment. However, the petitioner could not be allowed emergent parole at regular intervals.