NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 349 - 356]

Prakash Chand Regar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 349

Harisingh Rajput v Dr. Chhail Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 350

Mamta v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 351

Devaram v Khetaram & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 352

Buddalal & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 353

Pintu Lal Jat v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 354

Umesh Singh v the Director, CSIR- Central Electronics Engineering Research Institution, Pilani, Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan); 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 355

Harish Kumar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connection petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 356

Narendra Kumar Arya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

IN RE: “In the matter of Welfare and Future of Generation Gen-Z, Gen-Alpha and Gen-Beta”

Suo Moto, Structural Integrity, Safety And Imminent Peril To Human Lives Arising Fro The Central Dome And Allied Defects In The Building Of The Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat, Jodhpur.

Jitendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Kunjilal Meena v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matter

Public Against Corruption v the Union of India, and other connected matter

Order/Judgments of the Week

Rajasthan High Court Tightens Rules For Advocate Clerks, Law Interns; Mandates Clerk Registration, Intern Dress Code

Title: Prakash Chand Regar v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 349

In the backdrop of instances of inappropriate conduct by Advocate Clerks, the Rajasthan High Court has issued detailed directions regulating the registration, entry, conduct and dress code of Advocate Clerks, while also prescribing a dress code and entry requirements for law interns and students visiting the Court.

The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania has made registration mandatory for persons working as Advocate Clerks, subject to the eligibility requirements under the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, and directed that law interns and students attending proceedings adhere to a prescribed dress code and carry the requisite identification and Court pass.

The directions came after the Court took note of two incidents in which Advocate Clerks were found sitting at places not designated for them. One of them was found wearing earphones and using a mobile phone in the courtroom, while another was sitting with folded sleeves in a highly relaxed and inappropriate manner.

Stamp Duty Deficiency Must Be Dealt With Forthwith; Trial Court Can't Keep Issue Pending For Years: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Harisingh Rajput v Dr. Chhail Singh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 350

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a trial court cannot allow a statutory objection concerning stamp duty to remain pending for years merely because the issue involves mixed questions of law and fact.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali clarified that while Order XIV Rule 2 CPC generally requires courts to decide all issues together, and it does not permit an objection that can be dealt with through a prescribed statutory procedure to remain in procedural limbo.

Voter Names Can't Be Excluded From Electoral Rolls Due To 'Political Intervention': Rajasthan High Court

Title: Mamta v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 351

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioner whose application for transferring name in the electoral roll of a ward, basis her place of residence, was arbitrarily rejected after being accepted earlier on the same day, without assigning any reasons or an opportunity of hearing.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that as per Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Act, 1994 (“Act”) and Rules, 1994 (“Rules”), a person had indefeasible right to be a part of election process and getting name included in the electoral roll. Such right could not be deprived basis whims and facies of the Electoral Registration Officer or due to any political intervention.

"As per the provisions contained under the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1994, a person has an indefeasible right to be a part of the election process and he/she would have a right to include his/her name in the electoral roll and cast his/her vote and even to participate in the election. He/she cannot be deprived of such right solely on the whims and fancies of the Electoral Registration Officer or on account of any political intervention."

Son Can't Claim Coparcenary Share In Father's Inherited Property Unless HUF Is Established: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Devaram v Khetaram & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 352

Rajasthan High Court held that once the property inherited by a father under the statutory scheme was held to be his self-acquired property, and no pleadings were made to show that the property continued to be HUF/coparcenary property, a son could not derive his right on the property merely based on the relationship of father and son.

“…once succession has taken place under Section 8, the heirs succeed in their respective individual capacities and the property so devolved cannot be treated as joint family property merely on the basis of the earlier relationship of the parties.”

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act (the “Act”) could not be relied upon in isolation to create a coparcenary right in favour of a person or to characterize a property as ancestral. The property's character had to be determined independently by the source of acquisition, the nature of rights acquired by the predecessors and the rights devolved upon the successors.

'Public Utility' No Licence To Override Forest, Wildlife Laws: Rajasthan High Court Quashes NHAI Acquisition Near Sariska Tiger Reserve

Title: Buddalal & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 353

Rajasthan High Court set aside acquisition proceedings of a land parcel in Shahpura, Alwar, that was within 1 km of Sariska Tiger Reserve, allocated by the National Highway Authority of India (“NHAI”) to construct “public utility area” including fuel station and kiosks, despite recommendations by other authorities to shift the project to alternative sites.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that the term “public utility” could not be used to ignore all the statutory restrictions. Public purpose is a condition for exercising power of compulsory acquisition and not an exemption from compliance with other applicable laws. The Court further observed,

“…the respondents intend to construct Fuel Station and Kiosks also in the alleged public utility areas, which are apparently commercial purposes. The expression “public utility” cannot by itself operate as a legal solvent capable of dissolving all statutory restrictions. The character of an activity has to be determined by its actual nature, its location and the regulatory framework applicable thereto. Even a project serving a public purpose must comply with the law relating to forests, wildlife, environment and land use.”

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Penalty Imposed On Municipal Officer For Not Inviting MLA To Inauguration Ceremony

Title: Pintu Lal Jat v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 354

Rajasthan High Court quashed a penalty order imposed against a government employee–where one annual increment of his was withheld, after he inadvertently failed to invite an MLA to an inauguration function.

The bench of Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit took into account the fact that even though the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had resulted in the decision of dropping the proceedings against him, the penalty was imposed merely based on recommendations of the Minister of the Local Self Department.

The Court observed that the concerned Minister had no authority to pass the challenged order of imposing penalty on the petitioner and thus the penalty order which was based on such recommendation was not justified.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Compassionate Appointment 21 Years After Employee's Death, Says Financial Crisis Has Not Ended

Title: Umesh Singh v the Director, CSIR- Central Electronics Engineering Research Institution, Pilani, Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 355

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the authorities to consider an appellant for compassionate appointment, 21 years after his father's death, holding that the mere fact that a family has survived for years cannot be treated as proof that its financial crisis has ended.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Kumar and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma observed that while considering a claim for compassionate appointment, the family's financial means must be assessed in the context of its ability to maintain a dignified existence under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court also held that the appellant, who was a minor when his father died, had applied within a reasonable period after attaining majority. Therefore, the claim could not be rejected on hyper-technical grounds, including the fact that other eligible family members had not earlier applied.

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Plea Against Municipal Poll Reservation, Cites Article 243-ZG Bar

Title: Harish Kumar v the State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connection petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 356

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed petitions challenging the reservation of seats for the forthcoming municipal elections in the State, holding that it could not interfere with the election process after the election programme had been declared, in view of the bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the order dated August 19, 2026, by the Rajasthan State Election Commissioner indicated that the dates for conducting the municipal election in Rajasthan were declared and the election programme was also notified. Hence, the election process was initiated and Article 243-ZG of the Constitution was in operation.

Does Law Department Lack Administrative Control Over JDA Legal Officer? Rajasthan High Court Issues Notice, Stays Chargesheets

Title: Narendra Kumar Arya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court has issued notice on a plea challenging the jurisdiction of the Department of Law and Legal Affairs to initiate disciplinary proceedings against a legal officer posted with the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), and stayed the operation of two chargesheets issued against him.

The bench of Justice Anuroop Singhi was hearing a petition filed by Narendra Kumar Arya, challenging the chargesheets dated July 30, 2026 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Legal Affairs.

The petitioner contended that since he was posted with the JDA and was not under the direct administrative control of the Department of Law and Legal Affairs, the chargesheets suffered from lack of jurisdiction and competence of the issuing authority.

Rajasthan High Court Initiates Suo Motu PIL For Gen Z, Gen Alpha & Gen Beta Welfare; Seeks Plan To Address Paper Leaks, AI Disruption

Title: IN RE: “In the matter of Welfare and Future of Generation Gen-Z, Gen-Alpha and Gen-Beta”

The Rajasthan High Court has taken suo motu cognizance concerning the welfare of Gen Z, Gen Alpha, and Gen Beta and directed the filing of a status report and action plans on actions taken by the State and Union Governments to frame a mechanism to address major challenges, including paper leaks, education-to-employment gap, mental health and digital burnout, AI disruption, etc.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand took note of the growing educational needs of the new generations.

Observing that the said generations would lead India in 2047, the bench empahsized that the current conditions of government schools are suffering from "systematic deficiencies". The bench noted that these schools, which are building the foundation of the most vulnerable sections of the children, lack medical facilities, basic infrastructure, training, and newly emerging technology.

Further clarifying that the children must be equipped to have independent thought and reasoning and that technology should be taught as a tool and not a substitute for human intellect, the bench directed the Schools, Colleges and Universities to integrate digital learning, AI and allied technologies into their educational policy.

'Lives At Peril': Rajasthan High Court Bars All Courts From Granting Protection To Persons Responsible For Defects In Its Building

Title: Suo Moto, Structural Integrity, Safety And Imminent Peril To Human Lives Arising Fro The Central Dome And Allied Defects In The Building Of The Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat, Jodhpur.

The Rajasthan High Court has barred all courts in the State from granting protection to any person or officer allegedly responsible for structural defects in its building at Jodhpur.

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rekha Borana observed that any such order, if passed, shall be deemed to be of no effect, unless passed by the Division Bench of the Court or the Supreme Court.

“Any order passed for the purpose of protection, or which has the effect of impeding the investigation or proceedings initiated against persons found responsible, shall be viewed by this Court with utmost seriousness, and no such order shall operate until permitted by this Court.”

Furthermore, the Court directed all the concerned authorities to be personally present on the next hearing, along with the record reflecting the action taken against erring officials, the record of rehabilitation and remedial measures taken till date, and the future action plan.

26-Month Delay In SC/ST Act Probe: Rajasthan High Court Seeks Explanation From Former IOs, Supervisory Authorities

Title: Jitendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

While considering a delay of almost 2 years in completion of investigation in a case under the SC/ST Act, Rajasthan High Court directed filing of affidavits by all the former investigating officers, explaining the reason behind failure to adhere to the 60 days' time-line as per the Act.

The bench of Justice Shubha Mehta further directed the concerned authorities referred to under Rule 7(3) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (“Rules”) to explain the reasons behind non-compliance with the review mechanism prescribed under the Rules.

'Shocking': Rajasthan High Court Questions Officials Over Govt Land Encroachers Being Allowed To Cultivate It, Crop Sold Back For ₹500

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

While hearing an encroachment matter, Rajasthan High Court ordered affidavits from the Sarpanch/administrator as well as the Inspector Land Record Tehsildar of village Jhanpda, district Dausa, after “shockingly” discovering that the encroachers of the government land were allowed to cultivate and the crop was handed over to them at “throwaway” prices.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Prakash Sharma further sought assistance from the counsel of the State, on the next date of hearing, regarding the action proposed to be taken against the concerned Revenue Officials.

It was also submitted by the petitioner in the case that it was a recurring practice that every time the encroachers were removed, the same set of offenders were again allowed to cultivate on the land.

₹130 Crore Disbursed Without Work Under Jal Jeevan Mission? Rajasthan High Court Asks State To Ensure Recovery From Wrongdoers

Title: Public Against Corruption v the Union of India, and other connected matter

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State Government to strictly pursue recovery of public money from those responsible for alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Jal Jeevan Mission, after noting that around ₹130 crore was disbursed without the actual work being carried out.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma observed that while criminal proceedings against the concerned officials were underway, the State must also take steps to recover the wrongfully disbursed public funds.

The Court further directed the State and Central Governments to “act on war footing” to ensure drinking water reaches everyone in Rajasthan, observing that the State, being a desert region, should receive priority in this regard.