Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 314 to 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 356

NOMINAL INDEX

Shankar Ram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 314

Sanjay Choudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 315

Dinesh Chourasiya v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 316

Bhanwar Lal Bula & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 317

Asha Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 318

R v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 319

State of Rajasthan v Bhagwan Singh; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 320

State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Maneesha; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 321

Anupama Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 322

Lekhraj v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 323

Rani Devi v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 324

Jitendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 325

Suresh Sharma v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 326

Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. v Sagar Mal Handala & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 327

Vikram & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 328

Chandra Kanta Pahariya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 329

Fateh Rai Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 330

Antima Jain v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 331

State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Amita Sharma, and other connected appeals; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 332

Ajay Sarin & Anr. v MRF Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 333

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Associates v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 334

Aman Khan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 335

A v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 336

Ramrakh Chhipa & Ors. v Municipal Council; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 337

Smt. Mamta Jangid v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 338

R v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 339

Mukul Vairagi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 340

M/s K.K. Gupta Constructions Private Limited v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 341

Ajay Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 342

Rani Gupta v Management Committee, Maheshwari Public School and Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 343

Smt. Kiran v Municipal Corporation & Anr., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 344

Smt. Megha Tak v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 345

Ram Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 346

Riddham Deora v Union of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 347

Shree Balaji Enterprises v/s Reserve Bank Of India & Batch; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 348

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

Judgments of the Month

Rajasthan High Court Calls For Legal Training Of Police On Age Determination In POCSO, Juvenile Cases

Title: Shankar Ram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 314

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the Rajasthan Director General of Police (DGP) should consider imparting extensive legal training to investigating officers handling POCSO cases and matters relating to juveniles, after finding that the statutory procedure for age determination had not been followed in a case before it.

The Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain made the observation while granting bail in a POCSO case, after it found that contrary to the procedure prescribed under law, the opinion regarding the victim's age had been given by a Medical Officer of a Community Health Centre (CSC) instead of a Medical Board.

"It simply means that police is not aware about the legal provision and police infact require extensive training when it comes to compliance of legal provision. It is duty of the trial Court as well to point out the defect at very initial stage and same can be cured during investigation but after beginning of trial the defect cannot be cured."

Probationer Is Also 'Employee' Under RPwD Act, Can't Be Terminated For Acquiring Disability During Service: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Sanjay Choudhary v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 315

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a probationary government employee who acquires a disability during service is entitled to protection under Section 20 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and cannot be terminated merely because he was on probation.

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana granted relief to a constable whose services were terminated after he acquired 100% disability following an accident during his probation period. The Court held that an employee appointed through a regular process of recruitment does not cease to be an "employee" merely because he has not been confirmed in service.

Public Purpose Can't Override Statutory Timelines: Rajasthan High Court Quashes 2011 Land Acquisition Over Delayed Award

Title: Dinesh Chourasiya v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 316

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Rajasthan Housing Board in 2011 after holding that the award, passed in 2017, was barred by the mandatory timeline prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that once Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act became applicable, the limitation under Section 25 governed the proceedings, and not Section 11A of the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

“Public purpose, however laudable, cannot authorise continuation of proceedings in derogation of a legislative command… land acquisition laws are expropriatory in nature and when such statute creates a power and simultaneously prescribes the manner and period within which such power is to be exercised, the authority must act strictly within four corners of the statute,” it observed.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Collections From 'Illegal' Toll Plaza Be Used For Tree Plantation

Title: Bhanwar Lal Bula & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 317

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Project Director of the Rajasthan State Highways Authority to expeditiously decide, within three months, an application seeking implementation of the District Collector's order directing relocation of an allegedly illegal toll plaza.

The Court also directed that details of the toll collections be retained and placed before the Project Director, who shall pass appropriate orders for utilising the collected amount for planting shade-bearing trees in nearby public areas.

The Court further warned that if the Project Director fails to decide the application within the stipulated period, appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 may be initiated against him.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand  observed that tree plantation would serve the larger public interest.

Rajasthan High Court Grants First Parole To Asaram After Over 13 Years In Jail, Says State's Objections 'Figments Of Imagination'

Title: Asha Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 318

Rajasthan High Court granted Asaram 20-day parole–following an order upholding his conviction for raping a minor, in light of his age as well as the fact that he had spent more than 13 years in incarceration.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit rejected the grounds on which the parole application was rejected by the concerned authorities, opining those to be “misleading and figments of imagination without any basis”.

'Abuse Of Process': Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Alleging Husband Used Drugs, Black Magic To Solemnise Marriage

Title: R v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 319

The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed an FIR lodged by a woman against her husband alleging that he had used drugs, medicines and black magic to induce her into marrying him and had thereafter raped her, holding that the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that the FIR was lodged 4 years after marriage, and 1 year after a daughter was born out of the wedlock, and that too based on vague allegations.

Further, it was highlighted that since the main allegation was of rape, the offence was not made out against the petitioner in light of the Exception 2 to Section 375, IPC, that carved out marital rape from the definition of the rape.

Prior Sanction Required If Cognizance Taken After 2018 PC Act Amendment, Even If Chargesheet Filed Earlier: Rajasthan High Court

Title: State of Rajasthan v Bhagwan Singh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 320

The Rajasthan High Court has held that requirement of taking prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the “Act”) gets attracted even in a case where the offence was committed before the relevant amendment in 2018, but cognizance was yet to be taken in the case.

The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that the amended Section 19 created a statutory bar upon the competence of the Court to take cognizance until the previous sanction was obtained. The provision neither regulated the stage of investigation or the filing of the police report.

“The legislature has consciously chosen the stage of cognizance as the point at which compliance with the requirement of previous sanction becomes mandatory. Consequently, the date of commission of offence or submission of the charge-sheet cannot, by themselves, determine the applicability of the amended provision,” it held.

Suspension Order Not Invalid Merely Because It Doesn't Expressly State Inquiry Is Contemplated: Rajasthan High Court

Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Maneesha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 321

The Rajasthan High Court has held that where the application of mind by the concerned authority was apparent in a suspension order, such that it reflected that disciplinary proceedings were warranted, then omission of specific terms like “in contemplation of inquiry” would not render the order illegal. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 321]

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana further stated that servicing of charge sheet to the concerned employee within 3 months of passing the suspension order was not a mandate but only a directive, and failure to issue the charge sheet within this timeline, did not make the suspension bad.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Reimbursement Of COVID-Era Medical Expenses Incurred At Non-Recognised Hospital

Title: Anupama Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 322

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the government to reimburse the medical claim of an ex-Associate Professor at University of Rajasthan, who underwent treatment at multiple hospitals during Covid-19, before finally succumbing to the illness.

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed that during unprecedented times of Covid 19, when immediate availability of medical care was of paramount importance, denial of medical reimbursement on the ground of non-recognised hospital and absence of any emergent condition, could not be sustained.

Rajasthan High Court Flags 'Systemic Fraud' In Murder Trial; Orders Inquiry Into Trial Court, Prosecutor

Title: Lekhraj v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 323

While hearing a bail application, Rajasthan High Court raised apprehension of a “systemic fraud”, involving the trial court as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor (PP), in the background of a lapse of almost two years between the examination in chief and the cross-examination of the star witness in a murder case.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain has directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to inquire into the affairs of the trial court in relation to this delay, and place a report before the Court. Similarly, the Principle Secretary. Law and Legal Affairs has been directed to call for an explanation from the Additional PP and submit the inquiry report before the Court.

“Now, no one is there to protect the system when the persons in helms of affairs are indulged in destroying the system.”

Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To 60-Year-Old Woman In NDPS Case Arrested Over Calls With Co-Accused Son-In-Law

Title: Rani Devi v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 324

Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a 60 year woman, accused in an NDPS Case solely based on the confessional statements of the co-accused, who was her son-in-law as well as their call details that revealed conversations between the two.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand took note of the “special circumstances” of the relationship between the applicant and the co-accused. It opined that conversation between the mother-in-law and son-in-law was natural, which could not be made a ground to implicate the applicant.

The Court further highlighted that no recovery was made at the instance of the applicant, and she was in custody since the date of her arrest.

'Adopted Son-In-Law' Status Unknown To Law: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Compassionate Appointment Plea

Title: Jitendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 666/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 325

The Rajasthan High Court has held that adoption creates a legally recognised relationship only between an adoptive parent and an adopted son or daughter, and that there is no legally recognised category of an “adopted son-in-law”.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit thus dismissed a special appeal filed by a man seeking compassionate appointment on the basis of an adoption deed executed by his father-in-law, observing that an adoption deed purporting to create the status of an “adopted son-in-law” seeks to establish a status “completely unknown to law”.

"Correspondingly, the only relationship capable of being brought into existence through adoption is that of an adoptive parent and adopted son or daughter. There is no legally recognized category of an “adopted son-in-law” or of the converse status of an “adoptive father-in-law” which can possibly be established through the institution of adoption".

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Charge-Sheets Against Two PWD Engineers Over 'Grave Deficiencies' In Construction Of New HC Building

Title: Suresh Sharma v State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 105/2026,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 326

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld chargesheets issued against two PWD engineers in disciplinary proceedings initiated over "grave" deficiencies in construction of high court's new building at Jodhpur.

Noting that multiple incidents of roof collapsing have occurred, the bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja observed:

"once it is found that there were serious lapses in construction work, the issuance of charge-sheets by the respondents to the appellants who were working as Project Director and Project Officer, respectively, cannot be faulted."

Minister Had No Authority To Cancel Highest Bid, Housing Board's Post-Facto Approval Was 'Paper Formality': Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. v Sagar Mal Handala & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 327

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a Single Bench order directing the Rajasthan Housing Board to accept the highest bid submitted by a bidder in an auction for a commercial plot, holding that the Minister of the Urban Development and Housing Department had no authority under the applicable rules to cancel the bid and that the subsequent approval by the Housing Board was merely a “paper formality.”

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bhuwan Goyal further held that once an e-auction is conducted without any illegality in the auction process, the highest bid cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that another plot in the same vicinity had fetched a higher price.

Existing Houses Near Kumbhalgarh Fort Can Be Repaired, Expanded; No New Construction On Fresh Foundations: Rajasthan High Court

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 328

Holding that persons residing near archaeological sites for generations cannot be ousted merely in the name of protecting such sites, the Rajasthan High Court has permitted residents of existing houses near Kumbhalgarh Fort to carry out repairs and additional construction over those structures, subject to requisite permissions.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that residences in forts are not a new feature in Rajasthan and that people residing in and around forts for centuries cannot be ousted by refusing permission to carry out repairs and expansion.

The Court however clarified that its observations did not permit fresh construction involving new foundations.

Child Born Before Govt Service Not To Count Towards Maternity Leave Entitlement: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chandra Kanta Pahariya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 329

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to a woman government employee who was denied her second maternity leave during service on the ground that the child in question was her third biological child.

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed that the entitlement to maternity leave of a woman government employee cannot be construed in a narrow manner. Since the leave sought by the petitioner was only her second maternity leave during service, it could not have been denied merely because the child was her third biological child.

Passing Erroneous Quasi-Judicial Order Without Mala Fides, Corruption Not Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Fateh Rai Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 330

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed on a retired officer of the Rajasthan Administrative Service, who was accused of passing a wrongful decree in a tenancy suit and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, opining that an alleged erroneous quasi-judicial order was not misconduct.

The bench of Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit observed that disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against an officer exercising judicial/quasi-judicial powers merely because another authority formed a different legal opinion or considered the decision to be erroneous, unless there existed recklessness, mala fides, corrupt motive, or dishonest intention.

Failure To Substantiate Reserved Category Claim Doesn't Disentitle Candidate From Competing In General Category On Merit: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Antima Jain v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 331

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a candidate's failure to substantiate a claim for reservation does not disentitle them from being considered in the General category on their own merit.

While underscoring the aforementioned principle, the division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar granted relief to the petitioner whose candidature was rejected after she failed to produce OBC category document, despite her marks being above the cut-off for General Category.

The Court opined that rejection of her candidature was the result of an erroneous compartmentalization of categories, wherein reservation was treated as a rigid slot that foreclosed considering on merit in the open category.

Unrebutted Communication From Competent Authority Prevails Over Information Received Via RTI: Rajasthan High Court

Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Amita Sharma, and other connected appeals

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 332

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a communication issued by a competent authority would prevail over information furnished under the Right to Information Act, particularly when there is no material on record rebutting the contents of the official communication.

A division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja made the observation while allowing a batch of appeals filed by the State against a Single Judge's order directing the appointment of the respondents to the post of Prabodhak.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes ₹2.25 Crore Security Bond Imposed 'Without Reasons' For Issuing Succession Certificate

Title: Ajay Sarin & Anr. v MRF Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 333

The Rajasthan High Court has held that while exercising discretionary powers under Section 375 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a District Judge must record at least some justification or reasons before imposing a condition requiring an applicant to furnish a security bond for the grant of a succession certificate.

The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal set aside the order of the trial court as well as the appellate court that had imposed the condition of furnishing security bond of Rs. 2.25 Crores on the petitioners for issuance of succession certificate, without any reason mentioned in the relevant orders.

Lawyer Dies Of Heart Attack At Sessions Court: Rajasthan High Court Calls Lack Of Medical Facilities 'Alarming', Orders Immediate Action

Title: Rajasthan High Court Advocates Associates v State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19231/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 334

The Rajasthan High Court has called for immediate action from the State Government to provide basic medical facilities in the Sessions Court Complex at Jodhpur, after noting that a lawyer unfortunately passed away due to lack of primary treatment after suffering from a heart attack.

Calling the situation alarming, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed:

"The above narrated situation is alarming. The respondent- State being welfare State is duty bound to provide basic medical facilities to the Lawyers, Presiding Officers, litigants and the general public visiting the Sessions Court Complex on a day-to- day basis".

Right To Livelihood Doesn't Extend To Street Vending In Areas Outside Notified Zones: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Aman Khan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 335

Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by a street vendor, having a vehicle repair kiosk, opining that where vending zones were declared by the State by issuing notifications, no one could be allowed to put kiosks or to make temporary encroachments on any place which was not declared as a vending zone.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that the while right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) could not be denied arbitrarily, it was equally true that such right was not unqualified or unfettered.

Matrimonial Offences Cannot Be Quashed Merely Due To Subsequent Divorce Or Spouses Living Separately: Rajasthan High Court

Title: A v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 336

Rajasthan High Court dismissed a quashing petition filed by a husband, observing that a criminal case could not be quashed only because one of the spouses had obtained a decree of divorce and they were living separately.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that it might happen that the spouses were having differences and were living separately, but a matrimonial offence required a solution under law and that included registration of a criminal case.

"A criminal case cannot be quashed only on the ground that one of the spouse has obtained a decree of divorce and now they are living separately," it held.

Payment Of Property Tax Doesn't Establish Ownership To Sue On Behalf Of Temple Without Written Authority: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ramrakh Chhipa & Ors. v Municipal Council

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 337

Rajasthan High Court held that a suit instituted by someone in their personal capacity, asserting rights on behalf of a community or any deity, could not be sustained in the absence of any resolution, power of attorney or other written authority from the trust of the concerned temple or the community.

The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma further opined that payment of municipal taxes or issuance of receipt for such payment, only constituted proof of possession, without itself conferring any right, title, or interest of the payee over the concerned property.

“…mere issuance of a payment receipt bearing the name of a particular depositor neither creates nor extinguishes title to immovable property, nor does it constitute evidence of ownership or lawful management.”

The Court opined that the appellants had no locus to file the suit in the first place.

“…suit was instituted by the plaintiffs in their personal capacity, purportedly asserting rights on behalf of the Chhipa community and the deity Shri Ram-Laxman Ji Maharaj. However, the plaintiffs placed no resolution, power of attorney, or other written authority from the Temple Trust or the Chhipa community on record to establish their authority to institute the proceedings. In the absence of any document demonstrating that the plaintiffs were vested with administrative control or authorized by a competent body, the plaintiffs remain unauthorized individuals with no legal character or personal entitlement to maintain the suit.”

Woman's Midnight Arrest Without Magistrate Permission Illegal, But Not Ground To Quash Case: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Smt. Mamta Jangid v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 338

The Rajasthan High Court has held the midnight arrest of a woman without prior permission of the Magistrate to be violative of Section 43(5) BNSS, but ruled that the illegality in arrest alone was not a ground to quash the proceedings against her under the NDPS Act.

At the same time, noting the lapse on the part of the Sub-Inspector who effected the arrest, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to take action for training police personnel about the procedure of arrest.

“…Sub-Inspector, who conducted search after receipt of information has not bothered to read Section 43 of BNSS before effecting arrest of the present petitioner, who is a female. This clearly indicates that the police requires either extensive training or a handbook type of material so that the police personnel can comply with the provisions of law.”

Rape | Section 376 IPC Not Prima Facie Attracted Where Prosecution Material Shows Subsisting Marital Relationship: Rajasthan High Court

Title: R v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 339

The Rajasthan High Court has partly allowed a criminal revision petition and quashed the charge of rape framed against a man, holding that Section 376 IPC was not prima facie attracted as the prosecution material itself showed that the parties were in a subsisting marital relationship at the relevant time. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 339]

The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur reached this conclusion despite the prosecutrix's allegation that the marriage had not been solemnised or registered in accordance with the requisite formalities.

The Court noted that the prosecution case itself proceeded on the assertion that the petitioner had entered into a marriage with her.

Medical Board Can't Declare Disabled Candidate Ineligible For MBBS Without Explaining Specific Functional Limitations: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Mukul Vairagi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 340

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to an MBBS student who had been declared ineligible to pursue the course due to a congenital deformity of his left upper limb, holding that the Medical Board could not reach such a conclusion without identifying the specific functional limitations that prevented him from pursuing the course.

The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati found that the Board's assessment failed to identify any specific functional competency which the petitioner was unable to perform or explain how his impairment prevented him from pursuing the MBBS course.

“The impugned reports…given by the Medical Board are deficient, inasmuch as it does not contain a reasoned finding as to the specific functional competency which the petitioner is unable to perform and further does not explain as to how the disability prevents him from pursuing the MBBS Course. The reports also lack assessment regarding assistive devices or reasonable accommodation and the assessment of his dominant right hand.

'Can't Be Left Remediless': Rajasthan High Court Allows Offline Appeal Amid Dispute Over E-Tender Appeal Submission

Title: M/s K.K. Gupta Constructions Private Limited v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 341

Rajasthan High Court granted relief to an unsuccessful bidder, whose filing of an appeal via the CPWD (Central Public Works Department) e-tender portal was disputed, by opining that a person could not be allowed to remain remediless.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand allowed the petitioner to submit an offline copy of the memo of appeal before the concerned department within 24 hours and directed the department to decide the same expeditiously. The Court stayed the tender process till final disposal of the appeal.

Missed Physical Test Due To Illness, Pregnancy, Heavy Rains: Rajasthan High Court Grants One-Time Retest On ₹10,000 Cost

Title: Ajay Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 342

The Rajasthan High Court has granted a one-time opportunity to candidates who missed the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander due to circumstances such as illness, physical injuries, pregnancy and heavy rains.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain has directed the authorities to conduct a rescheduled test in September 2026. Candidates availing the relief, except those with valid Below Poverty Line (BPL) status, will have to deposit ₹10,000 towards the organisational expenses.

The Court observed that the petitioners had nothing to gain by deliberately missing the PET and that their absence was due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances.

“The paramount consideration is the interest of justice and a balanced approach. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners stood to gain nothing by deliberately missing the PET; and their absence was compelled by genuine, unavoidable circumstances as discussed above.”

₹1 Lakh Compensation For Illegal Termination Of Teacher 'Shockingly Disproportionate': Rajasthan High Court Enhances It To ₹20 Lakh

Title: Rani Gupta v Management Committee, Maheshwari Public School and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 343

The Rajasthan High Court enhanced the compensation payable to a teacher terminated illegally, from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 20 lakh, observing that the amount awarded by the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Tribunal was “shockingly disproportionate”.

The Court was dealing with a plea by a Hindi teacher who had served the respondent-school for around 20 years before her services were terminated in 2015 on the ground that there were no students for the subject of Hindi. The Tribunal had held the termination to be bad in law but, as the teacher had subsequently attained the age of superannuation, awarded her lump-sum compensation of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of reinstatement.

The bench of Justice Anuroop Singhi took note of the fact that the teacher was a permanent employee, had rendered unblemished service for around 20 years, was not terminated for any misconduct and was not gainfully employed between the date of her termination and superannuation. The finding that her termination was bad in law had also attained finality, as the school had not challenged it.

Rajasthan High Court Raps Jodhpur Municipal Corporation For Failure To Hand Over Auctioned Plots Due To Encroachments

Title: Smt. Kiran v Municipal Corporation & Anr., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 344

Rajasthan High Court took serious note of Municipal Corporation's inaction against encroachers that led to its inability to hand over possession of auctioned plots to the successful bidders, and opined that the body being part of the government was not supposed to function in a manner that led to litigations.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a bunch of petitions that alleged non-handing over of possession of auctioned plots by the government, as well as impleadment applications by other people alleging right over the said plots on account of having possession, who were being treated as encroachers by the Municipal Corporation.

“By its conduct and performance, the State must create a sense of security in the mind of the citizens and citizens while dealing with the State must be in a position to rely upon the representations made by it. A special sanctity attaches to its acts; a presumption of correctness is available in respect of them and a sense of security is assumed in relation thereto.”

Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna As One-Man Commission In Adarsh Credit Society Dispute

Title: Smt. Megha Tak v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 345

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order appointing former Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv Khanna as a one-man commission to adjudicate the claims and counterclaims of parties in disputes concerning properties attached in connection with the Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society.

A Division Bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Sangeeta Sharma observed that the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 provides its own statutory mechanism for the realisation of assets of a defunct society and related matters.

"We are of the view that until the adjudication is done in order to safeguard the properties in question, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of attachment or the order granting status quo by the learned Single Judge. However, we are inclined to set aside the order of appointing the retired Hon'ble Chief Justice of India as a one man commission to adjudicate the claims and counter claims of the parties to the writ petitions," it said.

Can't Demolish Properties For Road Widening Without Examining Title Claims, Fair Hearing: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ram Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 346

The Rajasthan High Court directed the constitution of a committee to examine the title claims and grievances of persons facing eviction and demolition for road construction and widening under Sriganganagar's Master Plan, holding that they must be given a fair hearing before any such action is taken.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that while development and road expansion in accordance with the Master Plan should not be obstructed, authorities could not deprive persons of their properties without following due process of law.

The Court further directed that if a person's valid title is established but the property is nevertheless required for road construction or widening in public interest, a decision must be taken to compensate them.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the city's development and beautification efforts, as outlined in the Master Plan, should proceed without obstruction. However, it is equally essential to ensure that property owners whose assets are subject to demolition are given a fair hearing. Accordingly, a Committee is required to be constituted to examine each case and redress the grievances of the petitioners.”

Minor Can't Be Denied Passport Merely Because Estranged Father Withholds Consent: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Riddham Deora v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 347

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the passport authority to issue a passport to a minor child, observing that merely because the father's consent was absent from the application, his constitutional right to go abroad cannot be violated.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed;

"The future and career of the petitioner cannot be allowed to remain dependent upon the wish, will and desire of one of his parents. The valuable constitutional right of the petitioner cannot be prejudiced and must not be allowed be taken away, merely because the consent of his father is not there on the application for getting passport. The petitioner cannot be compelled to approach his father to get his consent on the said application".

The bench further noted that unless the present of the children is fine and taken care of, how would their future become bright? The bench also emphasized that a child's right to go abroad for the betterment of his future career cannot be allowed to be ruined merely in the absence of the father's consent.

Rajasthan High Court Issues Guidelines To Combat Blanket Freezing Of Bank Accounts In Cyber Crime Cases

Title: Shree Balaji Enterprises v/s Reserve Bank Of India & Batch

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 348

The Rajasthan High Court has recently issued comprehensive guidelines for investigative agencies, banks and other authorities to combat "indiscriminate" freezing of bank accounts in cyber crime cases with the object of not only ensuring effective investigation but also protect "innocent citizens".

Justice Anand Sharma was dealing with a batch of 105 petitions wherein petitioners had challenged the freezing/debit-freezing/lien marking over their bank accounts pursuant to communications issued by the Investigating Agencies in connection with alleged cyber financial frauds.

In view of large number of similar matters coming before the Court and the recurring nature of the grievance, the High Court thought it appropriate to also lay down certain general directions and safeguards so that the legitimate interests of investigation and recovery of cyber-fraud proceeds are protected without subjecting innocent citizens, firms, companies and other account holders to arbitrary or disproportionate financial restrictions.

"The object is not to create an additional hurdle for cyber-crime investigation, but to ensure that effective investigation and protection of innocent citizens operate simultaneously. The fight against cybercrime will be strengthened, rather than weakened, when investigating agencies distinguish between a genuine mule account and an innocent account into which an isolated transaction has incidentally travelled" the court said.

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.