Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 215-2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
NOMINAL INDEX
Pramod Jain v the Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
Yasmeen Bee & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 216
Feliram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 217
Dhananjay Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 218
Mamta Kumari v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
Principle Secretary & Ors. v Dalbir Singh; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 220
M/s Shalimar Electrical v M/s Kanchan India Limited; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
Gangasahay & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
Ranjeet Raigar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
Order/Judgments of the Week
Court Can't Take Cognizance Of Offence Under Water Act Without Valid Authorization By Pollution Control Board: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Pramod Jain v the Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
Rajasthan High Court has said that in absence of a valid authorization by the Pollution Control Board or a competent officer authorized by the Board, in favour of the complainant under Section 49 of Water Act, a criminal court cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act.
The court said that as per the "prima facie material" placed before it, showed absence of any authorization by the Pollution Control Board or any officer authorized by the board in this behalf. The court thus said that the Magistrate shall consider whether any authorization letter was issued by the pollution control board or any other person in this behalf for the purpose of filing of the complaint before him prior to filing of the criminal complaint.
Rajasthan High Court Directs Formation Of Panel To Examine Issue Of Faulty Answer Keys, Wrong Questions In Public Recruitment Exams
Title: Yasmeen Bee & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 216
Expressing concern at recurring instances of faulty answer keys and incorrect questions in public recruitment exams, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to constitute a "High Level Committee of Senior IAS Officers" to examine the issue and formulate an SOP ensuring transparency and accuracy in future recruitment exams.
The court passed the direction, while upholding the right of meritorious candidates who were denied appointment to posts of Teacher Grade III Level II in 2022, based on original answer key which was subsequently revised after a long-drawn litigation. Based on revised answer-key, petitioners secured higher marks than some of the already appointed candidates.
In several cases, candidates who were initially denied appointment are thereafter found to have secured higher marks than some of the candidates already appointed on the basis of the original answer key. Denial of appointment to such more meritorious candidates, despite there being no fault attributable to them would be wholly arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Rights of more meritorious candidates cannot be permitted to be defeated on account of a faulty evaluation process attributable solely to the recruiting agency," the court said.
Rajasthan HC Expresses Surprise On Refusal For Complainant's Narco-Test Citing Language Barrier Despite Consent, Orders Fresh Murder Probe
Title: Feliram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 217
Rajasthan High Court expressed shock at the refusal of the concerned authority from conducting narco-test of the complainant in a murder case–who had consented to the same, on the ground that he was not fluent in Hindi.
Rather the authorities were required to depute someone who was acquainted with the mother tongue of such witness/suspect or victim, in whose presence the test could be done, it said. The court further said that Investigation Officer cannot close the investigation only on the ground that unknown accused persons were untraceable.
"It is quite shocking and surprising to entertain the aforesaid submission and reasoning behind refusing to conduct narcoanalysis test of the petitioner. If any witness is not acquainted with a particular language or is not fluent in Hindi language, this alone cannot be a ground for refusal of conducting narcoanalysis test of such person/suspect/witness. Under such eventuality, the Authorities concerned were expected to depute a person, who is acquainted with the mother tongue of such suspect/witness/victim, in whose presence, the concerned narcoanalysis test can be conducted".
O.31 R.5 General Rules 2018 | Mandatory To Serve Summons To Armed Forces Personnel Through Commanding Officer: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Dhananjay Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 218
Rajasthan High Court has said that an armed forces personnel–posted as a Soldier, Sailor or Airman, must be served summons for service of a case through their commanding officer as provided under General Rules (Civil & Criminal) 2018.
The court was considering the question 'Whether the service of summons upon a person, who is posted as Soldier, Sailor or Airman in the Armed Forces can be treated as sufficient service, if the summons are send by the registered post?'
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that such requirement was mandated by Order 31 Rule 5 of the General Rules (Civil & Criminal) 2018 (the “Rules”) so that sufficient time was granted for making necessary arrangement for relieving the concerned person from the operations of the Armed Forces.
Appointment Under Sports Quota Can't Be Denied For Representing University Outside State: Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Candidate
Title: Mamta Kumari v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a candidate who sought appointment to the post of Teacher under “Outstanding sports Person” category, earlier denied the benefit on the ground that certificate issued to her for participating in the Championship was for representing Haryana and not Rajasthan.
In doing so the court referred to the advertisement and said that the essential requirement was participation in any individual or team event in an All Indian Inter University Tournament duly recognized by the Association of Indian Universities; it nowhere stipulated that such participation must necessarily be while representing Rajasthan alone.
Therefore, once a candidate has participated in the prescribed tournament, the benefit of reservation cannot be denied merely on the ground that the candidate represented a University or Institution situated outside the State of Rajasthan. Any such restrictive interpretation would defeat the plain and literal meaning of the clause".
Subsequent Penalty Cannot Affect Promotion Against Vacancies That Arose Prior To Issuance Of Punishment Order: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Principle Secretary & Ors. v Dalbir Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 220
Rajasthan High Court held that the effective date for calculating past 7 years' record of government employee for consideration of promotion would start from the date vacancy accrued for the concerned promotion, and not the date of the incident against which disciplinary proceedings are initiated.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that any penalty had an impact on the promotion to be granted to the employee. However, such impact shall be on the promotions to be granted subsequent to the date of issuance of penalty and not for promotions against which the vacancy had accrued prior to issuance of the penalty order.
"It goes without saying that any penalty whether major or minor, has its effect, as per prevailing rules and circulars, over the promotion to be granted to the employee, yet it is settled that such penalty shall have its effect on promotions to be granted subsequent to date of issuance of penalty order and not in respect of promotion which is to be granted against the vacancy accrued on a date prior to issuance of penalty order".
'Claimant Inactive For Years': Rajasthan High Court Upholds Order Restricting Grant Of Interest From Date When Formal Demand Is Raised
Title: M/s Shalimar Electrical v M/s Kanchan India Limited
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
Rajasthan High Court held that where the claimant did not issue even a demand notice within a reasonable time, and remained inactive for a considerable period, the Court was justified in restricting the grant of interest only from the date on which a formal demand for payment was first raised.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Mishra and Justice Bipin Gupta held that once the claimant did not assert its alleged right within a reasonable time, it could not subsequently claim interest for the period during which it voluntarily remained silent without any justification.
“It is a settled principle of law that once the plaintiff-appellant itself remained dormant for a considerable period and did not assert its alleged right within a reasonable time, it cannot subsequently claim interest for the period during which it voluntarily remained silent.The said principle is further reinforced by the maxim 'Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt', meaning 'the law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights'…A party cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own inaction and seek interest for the entire interregnum despite having failed to initiate any prompt recourse for recovery of the alleged dues.”
Rajasthan HC Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Threats to State Wetlands, Orders Immediate Protective Measures
Title: IN Re: Protection, Conservation and Notification of Wetlands in the State of Rajasthan and Preservation of Biodiversity, Groundwater Recharge and Ecological Sustainability
Rajasthan High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the threats being faced by wetlands across the state of Rajasthan owing to pollution, encroachments, discharge of sewage, shrinking water spread, inadequate conservation measures, etc.
While underscoring the right under Article 21, duties under Articles 48A and 51(A)(g) of the Constitution, as well as the Public Trust doctrine, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rekha Borana observed that it was necessary to invoke its suo motu jurisdiction in larger public interest for conservation and sustainable management of wetlands in Rajasthan.
“The continued degradation, pollution, encroachment and disappearance of wetlands not only threatens biodiversity and ecological balance but also undermines water security, climate resilience and the quality of life of present and future generations.”
“The failure to identify, notify, conserve and protect wetlands in accordance with the applicable statutory framework may result in irreversible ecological consequences, including loss of biodiversity, depletion of groundwater resources, increased vulnerability to droughts and floods, deterioration of water quality and destruction of habitats essential for wildlife and migratory species.”
Accused Can't Be Made To Sit At Police Station All Day Without Concrete Evidence: Rajasthan High Court Asks SP To Monitor 5-Yr Murder Probe
Title: Gangasahay & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
While considering a plea to quash a murder FIR, Rajasthan High Court directed Dausa Superintendent of Police to monitor the investigation pending for over 5 years and to ensure that the accused persons were not harassed unnecessarily on the pretext of being required for interrogation, unless there was certain evidence against them.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that investigating officer could not be allowed to call the accused person at the police station and compel them to remain there from morning to evening, without being sure of presence of any concrete evidence against them.
"The Superintendent of Police, Dausa is directed to monitor the investigation and ensure that the petitioners are not harassed unnecessarily only on the pretext that there presence is required for interrogation, unless and until there is certain amount of specific evidence against them. In case, interrogation of the petitioners is required, then the Investigating Officer is granted liberty to interrogate the same, but he cannot be allowed in any case to call the accused persons at the Police Station and compel them to remain there from morning to evening, without being sure about any concrete evidence against them".
Rajasthan High Court Partly Allows Accused's Plea To Summon Document On POCSO Victim's Age, Says No Delay In Filing S.91 CrPC Plea
Title: Ranjeet Raigar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 223
Rajasthan High Court has partly allowed a POCSO accused's plea challenging a trial court order which had rejected his application under Section 91 CrPC seeking production of the complainant's admission ticket issued by the Community Health Centre to determine her age.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that an accused could not be deprived of the opportunity of a fair trial. It said:
"This fact is not in dispute that when the statements of the victim were recorded before Trial Court on 29.02.2021, this fact was not within the knowledge of the petitioner that the victim has given birth to a child at the Community Health Centre, Phagi, District Jaipur where she has mentioned her age as nineteen years. This fact came into his notice at a later stage. Thereafter, an application was submitted by him to seek information regarding the birth of the child of the prosecutrix from the Community Health Centre, Phagi under the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 and the aforesaid information was provided to the petitioner by the Primary Health Officer, Community Health Centre, Phagi on 17.01.2023.