Click the Play button to listen to article

The Rajasthan High Court has held that writ petitions arising out of criminal matters must be separately registered as Criminal Writ Petitions and placed before the appropriate bench in accordance with Rule 35(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952. 

The full bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K Agrawal, Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Anuroop Singhi observed:

"All writ petitions instituted after the pronouncement of this judgment, which arise out of criminal matters and fall within the ambit of Rule 315(1)(h), shall be categorised and registered as “Criminal Writ Petitions” and placed before the appropriate Bench in accordance with the roster and applicable Rules of this Court". 

The Court overturned the directions issued by the Division Bench in Jiya v. Government of Rajasthan [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 273], to the extent that it prohibited the registration of criminal-related writ petitions under the nomenclature of Criminal Writ Petitions. 

The bench noted, "Thus, to the extent that the aforesaid decision in Jiya (supra) failed to consider or give effect to the statutory mandate embodied in Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, its ratio, insofar as it prohibits criminal-side registration of such writ applications, is held to be per incuriam, having been rendered in ignorance of, or without due consideration of, a relevant statutory provision. It is a settled proposition that actus curiae neminem gravabit, an act of the Court shall prejudice no person, and that procedural classification must facilitate, rather than obstruct, the lawful exercise of jurisdiction". 

While hearing a writ petition, the bench noted a conflict with the directions issued in Jiya v. Government of Rajasthan and referred the matter to the full bench. The controversy centered on “whether a writ petition arising from a criminal matter must be registered and classified as a criminal matter under Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952”.

The Division Bench in Jiya (supra) has directed the Registry not to register any case under the nomenclature 'criminal writ petition'.

The court examined Section 315 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 and noted that it places an application for issuance of writ under Article 226 in a criminal matter in the same class as an application for bail under Section 491 of the CrPC and proceedings in contempt of court. Each of them is to be “registered and numbered after presentation as criminal miscellaneous cases”. The Rule places a writ petition in a criminal matter on a par with criminal miscellaneous cases.

However, the court noted that criminal cases treated as civil writ petitions “take it out of criminal class altogether”, which is contrary to Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rules. 1952. Noting the application of Rule 143 of the Rules, which excludes special appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge bench rendered in criminal jurisdiction, the bench emphasized that the classification under the rule “carries direct legal consequences”.

Further, the bench clarified the distinction between 'civil proceedings' and 'criminal proceedings', referring to the case of Ram Kisham Fauji v. State of Haryana [2017 5 SCC 533]. The bench also highlighted that even though the Constitution does not create separately enumerated constitutional jurisdiction called 'criminal writ petitions', the High Court may classify proceedings administratively.

Thus, the bench held, “a petition under Article 226 arising from a criminal matter be classified and assigned to the criminal side in accordance with the applicable High Court Rules and roster, as the provision enumerated in Rule 315(1)(h) expressly contemplates registration as a criminal case; the use of the words “shall be registered” is mandatory in form”.

On the next issue of whether “Criminal Writ Petition” is merely a matter of Registry classification, the bench noted that the Constitution does not create separate constitutional powers called 'civil or criminal writ jurisdiction'. But the High Court “may distribute its judicial business between different Benches according to the nature of the proceedings, subject matter and applicable roster”.

The bench further highlighted, “The nomenclature is, in form, a matter of Registry classification; however, the classification cannot always be dismissed as a purely clerical or statistical exercise. Where the classification determines placement before a particular roster Bench, it has substantive consequences for the orderly administration of justice. The classification should therefore reflect the true nature of the dispute and the applicable roster, without suggesting that the Constitution itself creates an independent jurisdiction called “Criminal Writ Petition”.

Regarding the directions in Jiya (supra), the bench noted that merely because there was a judicial direction given to change or restrict the case nomenclature, the rule cannot be treated as having ceased to operate. Thus, “The Rule must either be given effect through a harmonious interpretation of the relevant directions or be addressed through a legally sustainable determination concerning its scope or validity”.

Further, the court noted that merely because Article 226 of the Constitution does not separately enumerate a constitutional remedy under criminal writ petition, it does not by itself invalidate that procedural classification. The bench clarified, “A procedural nomenclature does not create a new constitutional jurisdiction, but neither does the absence of that nomenclature in the constitutional text necessarily prohibit its use under valid procedural Rules”.

Thus, the bench directed:

"That the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning criminal matter or proceeding is separately registered as S.B. Criminal Writ Petition for the purposes of registration, classification and shall be placed before the appropriate Bench in accordance with Rule 315(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules". 

Tags: