LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 7 to September 13, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 366 - 382]Surendra Khinchi v the Bar Council of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 366Manish Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 367Ramlaxman Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 368United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v Baroda Rajasthan Shetriya Gramin Bank; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 369Gopali Devi v Gyarsi Lal & Ors.;...
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 366 - 382]
Surendra Khinchi v the Bar Council of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 366
Manish Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 367
Ramlaxman Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 368
United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v Baroda Rajasthan Shetriya Gramin Bank; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 369
Gopali Devi v Gyarsi Lal & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 370
Apporva Agrawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 371
Shriram Enterprises v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 372
M v S; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 373
Surendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 374
Pramod Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 375
Mahendra Kumar Mehta v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 376
Vimal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 377
Neeraj Bishnoi v Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 378
Dwarka v Durgalal & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 379
Kishna Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. ; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 380
Makhan Lal Mishra v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 381
Kuldeep Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 382
Hari Om v State of Rajasthan
Sanjay Ashiya v State of Rajasthan
Order/Judgments of the Week
Title: Surendra Khinchi v the Bar Council of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 366
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Bar Council of Rajasthan (“BCR”) to dispose of all pending applications for enrolment as advocates latest by September 9 and to inform the concerned candidates accordingly.
While taking note of many pending applications for enrolment as advocates, Justice Shubha Mehta stated that such delay was adversely impacting the right to livelihood of the candidates.
While highlighting that along with the petitioner's, applications of several other candidates were also pending, the Court stated that delay in enrolment was causing difficulty to the candidates and was adversely affecting their right to livelihood.
Title: Manish Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 367
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the office of Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General (GA-cum-AAG) to call upon factual reports of FIRs, preferably within 3-7 days of filing of bail applications, based on which the bail shall be heard and decided in cases of petty offences, unless the Court considers it necessary to call for the case diaries.
While underscoring the issue of delay in hearing of bail applications, the bench of Justice Ravi Chirania held that sometimes in the matters of petty offences, the bail applications could be decided on merits, at the earliest, even without the case diary, depending upon the fact of each case.
Title: Ramlaxman Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 368
The Rajasthan High Court has held that husband and wife were separate entities, and neither could be held liable for the misconduct or disgraceful act of the other, done in the capacity of a public representative, unless they have also indulged in the same.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined, a spouse of an erstwhile public representative, could not be asked to pay dues owed by of his/her husband/wife in their capacity as the former public representative, unless it was proved that the concerned spouse was also involved in the related misconduct.
“A Public Representative himself/herself is alone liable and responsible for his/her disgraceful act or any misconduct. If at all any recovery proceedings are initiated against him/her, he/she alone is liable to clear the dues and deposit the amount pending against him/her. This Court fails to understand how recovery proceedings can be initiated against the family members of the erstwhile Sarpanch or any other Public Representative.”
Title: United India Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v Baroda Rajasthan Shetriya Gramin Bank
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 369
The Rajasthan High Court has held the a bank's claim of loss from dacoity cannot be rejected by the insurance company on the ground of bank's failure to follow the security guidelines prescribed by the RBI, when the fact of such non-compliance was communicated by the bank to the insurance company in the policy proposal.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that once appropriate premium amount was accepted and the policy was released by the insurance company in the bank's favour, the former was bound by promissory estoppel.
The Court held that before issuing the policy in the bank's favour, the insurance company could have asked the bank to complete the requisite formalities, regarding the security guidelines issued by the RBI. However, without doing do, straight-away the policy was issued by the petitioner.
Title: Gopali Devi v Gyarsi Lal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 370
While setting aside the order of Revenue Board, Rajasthan High Court held that if an appeal was filed against an order of remand, and the higher court was satisfied that the order was not just/proper, the matter could be remanded to the first appellate court for deciding afresh, but the plaintiff's revenue suit could not be rejected.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if such orders dismissing suits were allowed, the appellant would be deprived of the right to avail remedy of first appeal.
The Court held,
“…if the Board was of the view that the order passed by the RAA was not legally sustainable in the eyes of law, then the matter could have been remanded to the RAA with clear and specific directions to decide the appeal on its merits by quashing the order of remand, but in the instant case, the Board has gone one step ahead and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff as well. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to avail the remedy of first appeal.”
Title: Apporva Agrawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 371
The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a PIL that raised concerns regarding the protection of leopard habitat in the Jawai region of District Pali and sought regulations on construction and tourism, by declaring the area within one kilometer of the notified boundary of Jawai Leopard Conservation Reserved as the interim regulatory threshold.
It was clarified that,
“The said distance is, therefore, not being declared to be an immutable ecological boundary or a permanent no-construction radius. It is adopted as an interim, evidence-informed regulatory threshold until the State completes geo-referenced mapping, ecological and carrying-capacity assessment and frames a comprehensive policy capable of identifying areas requiring absolute protection and areas where regulated or permissible activity may appropriately be allowed.”
At the same time, the Court clarified that certain village and essential activities shall not be treated as prohibited merely because they fell within the 1 km distance, including residential construction; repair or reconstruction without material expansion; schools, anganwadis, drinking water facilities; traditional agriculture, grazing and other customary livelihood activities, provided requisite permissions were taken as prescribed by law and there was compliance with wildlife-friendly conditions.
While ordering the continuity of the directions given in earlier orders dated March 23, 2026 and April 4, 2026, as well as the SOP presented by the State in the last hearing, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rekha Borana laid down certain other directions to remain operative till formulation and notification of a comprehensive policy by the State.
Title: M/s Shriram Enterprises v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 372
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the confiscation proceedings initiated by the Mining Department and the criminal proceedings initiated for illegal mining are separate, and conclusion of criminal case does not automatically result in release of the vehicle seized therein.
For context, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”), in which the petitioner's vehicle was seized. The driver of the vehicle pleaded guilty but was released after getting benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The Magistrate directed that if the vehicle was not required in any other case, it may be released.
After hearing the contentions, the bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu highlighted that the Magistrate had only ordered a conditional release of the vehicle subject to it not being required in any other case. The Court observed that the Magistrate was dealing only with the complaint under the MV Act and no report from the Mining Department was called for.
In this background, while opining that the proceedings under both the MV Act and the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, were separate.
Title: M v S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 373
The Rajasthan High Court has held that denial of cohabitation by the wife as well as filing of a false criminal case against the husband, amount to cruelty.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja was hearing an appeal against Family Court's rejection of a divorce application filed by the appellant-husband.
The Court stated, “the husband and the wife both are living separately since the year 2010 and there is no chance of their re-union at this point of time. In our considered view, asking both them to live together at this point of time amounts to cruelty to both of them, as there is no chance of their re-union.
Title: Surendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 374
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on a man accused under Section 319(2) BNS, for representing himself to be an advocate without enrolment with the Bar Council and making appearances before the trial court.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania opined,
"No person can be permitted to practise as an Advocate or represent himself as an advocate unless until he is duly enrolled with the respective Bar Council of State in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961."
The Court was hearing a quashing petition for an FIR against the petitioner, who had allegedly, presented himself as an advocate before courts in certain matters and had also made certain filings, without having any bar enrolment.
Title: Pramod Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 375
The Rajasthan High Court has taken serious note of the lethargic and casual approach adopted by the stakeholders involved in digitization of the case files, leading to demonstrated delays in uploading of documents on the portal of the Paperless Module, causing great inconvenience to the Court and in-turn frustration of the objective of paperless courts.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further observed that suitable amendments were needed in the Standing Order passed by the Registrar General on November 2, 2020, delineating roles and responsibilities of High Court staff for scanning of criminal cases. It held that the Standing Order could not be limited to criminal matters anymore.
“Much time has passed after issuance of the Standing Order dated 02.11.2020. This order needs suitable amendments as it is confined to criminal matters only and it is required to be applicable to all kinds of matters of this Court. The Standing Order dated 02.11.2020 should not be confined to criminal cases only, as presently we are undergoing to the new era of technology and in process of shifting to the paperless Court functioning in all kinds of matters pending in Civil/Criminal/Writ/Miscellaneous cases.”
Title: Mahendra Kumar Mehta v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 376
The Rajasthan High Court has constituted a committee to coordinate with the Trust of the Ramdevra Temple, in Jaisalmer, to oversee the sanitation, healthcare and law & order requirement of the devotees, and create basic infrastructure facilities in this regard.
The division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma was hearing a PIL that alleged lack of appropriate infrastructure and basic facilities like sanitation and healthcare, to cater to an excess influx of around 2-3 lakhs devotees, on a daily basis, during particular months.
Title: Vimal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 377
The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a PIL filed in 2018, seeking directions for regular appointment of Art Teachers (Drawing and Music) in government schools, alleging that the existing teachers who were imparting Arts education to students were not graduate in Art.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja took note of the affidavit filed by the State as well as the submission by the Advocate General, as per which the State had directed that art education shall be imparted to the students of Classes I to X by teachers who had studied Arts as a subject in their B.Ed Course.
Title: Neeraj Bishnoi v Comptroller and Auditor General of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 378
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a government employee could not be said to have remained politically neutral, as was mandated under Rule 3(1)(vii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (“Rules”), if s/he contested elections as an official candidate of a political party.
Rule 3(1)(vii), provides that a government servant shall, at all times, maintain political neutrality.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja further opined that even if such elections were contested after resignation from service, while considering withdrawal of such resignation, he would considered to have undertaken such prohibited activities.
Title : Dwarka v Durgalal & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 379
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a trial court's decision to condone the delay in filing a written statement in a non-commercial civil suit, observing that the timeline under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC is directory and not mandatory, and that there can be no straitjacket formula for deciding whether a delayed written statement should be accepted.
The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal held that although a party seeking to file a written statement beyond the statutory timeline must provide sufficient reasons or a justified explanation, such reasons have to be assessed on the facts and circumstances of each case, rather than through a rigid or inflexible approach.
Title: Kishna Ram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 380
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the mechanism of discovery and production of documents under Order XI, Rules 12 and 14 of CPC, could not be invoked merely because a litigant found it convenient to obtain evidence though the opposite party, especially when such evidence was otherwise reasonably accessible to them.
“The processes of court cannot be made a handmaiden of indolent litigators. Neither can said provisions be reduced into a medium of collecting evidence in support of foundational facts pleaded by such party, the burden of establishing which lies upon it…”
The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit was hearing a petition challenging order of the trial court that rejected an application by the petitioner seeking production of certain documents that were allegedly in the respondent-department's custody.
The Court opined that the documents in question were public documents, being part of official records of the respondent-department, and hence, were capable of being obtained as per the applicable laws governing production of public documents.
Title : Makhan Lal Mishra v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 381
While upholding penalty imposed on an in-charge of a Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Rajasthan High Court observed that failure on part of the petitioner's subordinate in carrying out his duties, did not absolve the petitioner from all his responsibilities, especially when nothing on record suggested any action taken against the subordinate.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma was hearing challenge against the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed against the petitioner over the allegations of issuing irregular sickness/fitness certificate to another government servant.
Rajasthan High Court Rejects Plea Against Deletion From Voter List, Cites Bar Under Article 243ZG
Title : Kuldeep Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 382
The Rajasthan High Court has rejected a man's plea challenging the deletion of his name from the voter list for the Nagar Palika General Election 2026, in light of the prohibition imposed by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India.
Article 243 ZG bars courts from interfering in the matters relating to municipal elections.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the matter pertained to casting of vote in the upcoming Municipal Elections for which a detailed election program was already issued by the Rajasthan State Election Commission, and hence the election process was already initiated.
Other developments
Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal Sworn-In As Chief Justice Of Rajasthan High Court
Justice Sanjay Kumar Agrawal was sworn-in as Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court on Monday (September 7).
The oath of office was administered by Governor Haribhau Kisanrao Bagde.
The Central Government had notified Justice Agrawal's appointment as Chief Justice on Saturday. The Supreme Court Collegium had made the recommendation on August 31.
Title: Hari Om v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the dispossession of a government employee from his official accommodation after finding that the allegation against him changed from unauthorised persons residing in the quarter to sub-letting of the premises in the subsequent cancellation order.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma noted a “considerable variation” between the initial notice and the impugned order.
As per the petitioner, he was an Assistant Administrative Officer, who was allotted a house in Gandi Nagar, Jaipur, by the government. Standing Committee inspected the accommodation in July 2026, in the absence of the petitioner, during which his daughter was present.
Title: Sanjay Ashiya v State of Rajasthan
The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the declaration of final results of the selected candidates in the recruitment process to the post of Assistant Professor (English).
The bench of Justice Ganesh Ram Meena was hearing a petition that alleged that the State proceeded ahead in the recruitment process without considering the objections raised to the model answer key published on 31.12.2025 in respect of the written examination conducted for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (English).