Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 280 - 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 288Nominal IndexSurendra Kumar & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 280Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan v Annu; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 278Rajasthan University of Health Science & Ors. v Tanvi SharmaPeer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v/s The State Of Rajasthan and batch; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279Suo Motu...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 280 - 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 288
Nominal Index
Surendra Kumar & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 280
Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan v Annu; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
Rajasthan University of Health Science & Ors. v Tanvi Sharma
Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v/s The State Of Rajasthan and batch; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279
Suo Motu v State of Rajasthan
Suo Motu v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Harshit Solanki v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 281
X v Y; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
Roshan Lal v Veni Ram & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
Suo Moto - In Re - In The Matter Of Grievance Of The Girls Staying In Balika Grah v Union of India
Vikas Modi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 284
Moola Ram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 285
Rajendra Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 286
State of Rajasthan v Premlal, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 287
Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr. v Varda & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 288
Order/Judgments of the Week
Title: Surendra Kumar & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 280
Observing that mining leaseholders bear a responsibility to ensure that illegal mining is not carried out in the areas allotted to them, the Rajasthan High Court has cautioned that leaseholders found indulging in unauthorised extraction may face cancellation of their leases. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279]
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma further clarified that, in the event of such violations coming to light, the Mining Engineer would be at liberty to cancel the leases of the erring mining operators.
Title: Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan v Annu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
The Rajasthan High Court has held that courts cannot direct educational boards to alter the date of birth recorded in school certificates, observing that such requests must first be examined by the concerned Board itself. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 278]
Setting aside a single judge's order directing the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, to change a student's date of birth in her Class X certificate, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma clarified that an aggrieved person may approach the civil court if dissatisfied with the Board's decision.
Title: Rajasthan University of Health Science & Ors. v Tanvi Sharma
Rajasthan High Court has directed the Rajasthan University of Health Science (RUHS) to form an independent Equivalence Committee to decide whether B.Sc. Biochemistry was equivalent to B.Sc. Biology with Chemistry and Zoology.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma has asked RUHS to submit a report in this regard within one month.
The matter is listed on August 10, 2026.
Title: Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v/s The State Of Rajasthan and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging show-cause and eviction notices issued to Mosques, Madrasas and Dargahs situated within 50km of the India-Pakistan border, observing that the matter pertained to national security and was not a case of religious discrimination. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279]
The court was hearing a batch of pleas by various Madrasas, Mosques, and Dargahs challenging validity of the eviction/vacation/ and show-cause notices issued by the state authorities, qua the petitioners' properties and constructions situated within a radius of approximately 50 km from the Indo–Pakistan border.
Justice Sameer Jain referred to Ministry of Home Affairs' notification of 11.10.2021, under Section 139 of the Border Security Force Act, as per which the Central Government enhanced and rationalized the territorial jurisdiction and operational powers of the Border Security Force in border areas, including regions extending up to 50 kilometres from the International Border.
"this Court holds that in matters involving national security, strict adherence to the traditional rigours of natural justice is not always warranted, and a pragmatic, situation responsive approach is permissible, provided that there exists material justifying such action. In the present case, sufficient procedural compliance has been made, and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners, who themselves have abstained from participation," it held.
Dismissing the petitions court however directed constitution of a Committee comprising the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, and representative of the Border Security Force (BSF) of the area concerned, to examine cases (on individual basis) involving sensitive properties.
Title: Suo Motu v State of Rajasthan
Expressing concern over the sharp decline in Rajasthan's camel population—from nearly 15 lakh to 1.5 lakh—the Rajasthan High Court has ordered the Director of the Animal Husbandry Department to personally appear before it and explain the measures being taken for the protection, breeding and healthcare of the State animal.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma at the Rajasthan High Court observed that the State had failed to provide adequate support for camel rearing and preservation, despite the growing responsibility arising from traditional camel-rearing communities gradually shifting to other occupations.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 5, 2026.
Title: Suo Motu v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
While hearing petitions raising concern about the welfare of elephants at the Hathi Gaon at Amer in Jaipur, Rajasthan High Court directed the concerned jurisdictional Chief Conservator of Forest to physically appear on the next date with details regarding steps taken for the welfare of domesticated elephants.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma expressed shock over the submission by the counsel for the Forest Department to the effect that he had no "incurring about the facts" of the present case and that they did not even have the file of the case with them.
The matter is listed on July 23, 2026.
Title: Harshit Solanki v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 281
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the denial of compassionate appointment to the son of a government employee who suffered 75% disability following a brain stroke, holding that compassionate appointment cannot be extended to disabilities falling outside the eight categories exhaustively enumerated under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Permanent Total Disabled Government Servants Rules, 2023. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 281]
A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that although welfare legislations ordinarily merit liberal interpretation, courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce categories consciously omitted by the legislature.
“A conjoint reading of Rules 2(b) and 2(f) indicates that the Legislature has consciously restricted the benefit of compassionate appointment to cases where permanent total disability arises solely and directly from an accident while on duty and is of the nature specifically enumerated under Rule 2(f)... Such legislative drafting manifests a conscious policy choice to confine this exceptional benefit only to those situations expressly contemplated by the Rule,” the Court held.
Title: X v Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
While dispensing with the requirement of serving notice upon the husband in a transfer petition in a matrimonial matter, Rajasthan High Court observed that in many matrimonial cases, transfer petitions remained pending merely at the stage of service. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 282]
It was held that issuance of notice in matrimonial transfer petitioner and keeping such matters pending for years, particularly when interim stay orders continued, did not advance cause of justice.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further opined that in matrimonial disputes, where one spouse was already appearing before the Courts situated at the residential place of other spouse, insisting upon continuation of connected matrimonial proceedings at different stations was cumbersome and impractical that prolonged parties' agony and delayed substantive justice.
Title: Roshan Lal v Veni Ram & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
While upholding appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the power was to facilitate effective adjudication of the issues arising at the interlocutory stage, and the Commissioner's report did not confer or extinguish any substantive right of either party.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that neither party was relieved from their obligation to establish their case by leading admissible evidence during trial because of the findings in the Commissioner's report.
Title: Vikas Modi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 284
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a land is notified in the Master Plan as a 'Green Belt', every authority exercising powers relating to land use, conversion, regularization, allotment of pattas, etc. is bound to act within the four corners of the Master Plan and any action contrary to the same would be illegal and liable to be quashed.
“Master Plan prepared under the planning statutes is not merely an advisory document or a statement of governmental intent, it is a statutory instrument having binding force upon all authorities and citizens alike…Green Belt areas constitute vital ecological and environmental assets of a city and their protection is not merely a statutory obligation, but also a constitutional imperative flowing from the principles underlying Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to dilute or defeat such protection through unauthorized administrative actions must be dealt with firmly.”
The Court further opined that the doctrine of bona fide purchaser could not be invoked to validate an illegal transaction. Similarly, principle of estoppel could not operate against a statue or compel a public authority to perpetuate an action contrary to law.
The Court also rejected the argument of violation of Article 300A and held that the constitutional protection did not extend to preservation of rights created in violation of law.
Title: Moola Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 285
The Rajasthan High Court recently permitted a murder convict lodged in an open air camp to solemnise his marriage with a woman convict who has been released on bail, observing that the right to marry is an intrinsic facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed,
"solemnization of marriage between two consenting adults is an intrinsic facet of right of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The institution of marriage finds recognition across all major religions and cultures and has constituted a foundational unit of society."
Title: Rajendra Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 286
The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that Station House Officers (SHOs) cannot not act as a mere "post office" by forwarding the documents and charge sheet to the Court, prepared based on the probe conducted by the Investigating Officer.
It said that they are duty bound to supervise, check and ensure that the investigation was conducted in an impartial, fair and expeditious manner, in accordance with law.
“A fair and impartial investigation is the bedrock of justice…Therefore every Station House Officer (for short “SHO”) and Investigation Officer has a constitutional and legal duty to ensure the investigation to be fair, transparent and based only on evidence. Hence, it is their statutory duty to conduct the investigation without bias, fear or favour and in accordance with law...
SHO of any Police Station cannot act as a mere post office, simply forwarding documents to the concerned Court. The SHO is duty bound to supervise and check whether the investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer in a proper manner or not..." the court said.
Title: Suo Moto - In Re - In The Matter Of Grievance Of The Girls Staying In Balika Grah v Union of India
The Rajasthan High Court has called for affidavits from the concerned state officials on the actual requirements of Nari Niketan/ Balika Grah/ Bal Griah and Foster Home in various district.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit has further sought the present status with photographs, of the respective places.
The suo moto petition was based on a letter received from the children residing at Balika Grah, Alwar, regarding severe challenges being faced by them owing to non-receipt of grant in aid due to inaction by the State.
The matter is listed on July 20, 2026.
Rajasthan High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Death For Wife's Murder, Cites Lapses In Probe
Title: State of Rajasthan v Premlal, and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 287
The Rajasthan High Court recently acquitted a man sentenced to death by a trial court for the murder of his wife, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to his guilt and that the investigation suffered from serious lapses.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma reiterated that suspicion howsoever strong, could not replace legal proof and where two views were reasonably possible on the evidence, the once favouring the accused prevails.
“…on an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish several essential links in the chain of circumstances. The last seen circumstance remains doubtful; the motive remains unproved; the investigation suffers from material omissions and procedural irregularities; the recoveries are surrounded by serious suspicion; the electronic evidence lacks proper foundational proof; and the medical evidence does not conclusively support the prosecution theory to the exclusion of every other possibility.”
Title: Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr. v Varda & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 288
After around 35 years of the incident, Rajasthan High Court upheld the liability of the State for paying compensation in a case of death by electrocution due to a live wire that had broken and fallen on the ground.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Taneja took into account the fact that the electricity line had not been repaired for a long time, and there was also negligence on part of the deputed line-man, who was unavailable on duty at the relevant time.
While underscoring the principle of strict liability, the Court highlighted that since there was escape and transmission of electricity i.e. a dangerous substance, that caused harm, the State was liable.