NOMINAL INDEX

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

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

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

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

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

Order/Judgments of the Week

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.

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.”

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.

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.”