Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: March 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 80 To 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 118NOMINAL INDEXCharan Singh Khangarot v Raghunath Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 80Dr. Vimla Kumawat v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 81Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 82Rameshwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 83Ramprakash Kahrlwa v the Director, Elementary Education & Ors, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 84Vikram Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 85State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Ashish Saxena & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 86B v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 87Aaradhya Verma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 88Shrutika Chauhan & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 89Vinit Kumar Adiwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 90Suo Moto v Akshay Sharma & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 91Vikram Nath v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 92Purna Ram v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 93Rajeev Dutta v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 94Sumitra v Ashish; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 95Vijayraj v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 96Neeraj Sharma v State Bank of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 97RS & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 98Kishan Agarwal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 99Himmat Singh Gehlot v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 100Gautam v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 101Subhash Saini v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 102Narayan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 103State of Rajasthan v Moola Ram; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 104Nirmal Dudani v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 105Khushbu Choudhary v Rajasthan High Court; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 106Pratap Singh Hada v Rajkumar Jhamb; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 107Jitendra Meena v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matter; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 108Sharda Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 109Ajeet Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 110Altaf Bano & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 111Vibhorgolash v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 112Apoorva Agrawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 113X v Y; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 114Ravi Meena v Pushpendra Singh Rathod; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 115Santosh Dangi v Firm & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 116Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan and Others; 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 117Pratap Singh v/s The Jaipur Development Authority And batch; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 118Order/Judgments of the MonthRajasthan High Court Deprecates Litigants Pursuing Two Remedies Simultaneously, Says 'Hedging Bets' ImpermissibleTitle: Charan Singh Khangarot v Raghunath Singh & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 80While rejecting a revision petition, the Rajasthan High Court held that an aggrieved party cannot be allowed to avail two parallel remedies at the same time against the same order or judgment passed against them as such a conduct amounts to abuse of judicial process.Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that once a party chose a remedy, s/he was bound by it and could not switch over to another if they fail to get any relief in the first remedy. “By availing two parallel remedies, the petitioner intends to sail in two boats and the same cannot be permitted. One cannot pursue two parallel remedies against the self same judgment at the same time, as this will be deemed to be an abuse of the process of law and Court. Though multiple remedies might technically exist and selecting one remedy often bars the initiation of another remedy simultaneously. Such practice cannot be appreciated, rather it is liable to be deprecated. Once a party chooses to pursue one remedy (eg. appeal), he/she is bound by it and cannot switch over to another if he/she fails to get any relief in the first remedy. Essentially a litigant must choose his/her path and he/she cannot be allowed to “hedge his bets” by way of pursuing two parallel remedies simultaneously for espousing the same cause," the Court said.Denying Doctor Permission To Pursue Higher Studies Solely Due To 'Administrative Inconvenience' Not Sustainable: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: Dr. Vimla Kumawat v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 81The Rajasthan High Court has granted interim relief to a Medical Officer who was selected for a Senior Residency Course but was not relieved from service by the State, observing that denial of permission to pursue higher studies merely on account of administrative inconvenience cannot be sustained.Justice Nupur Bhati directed the State authorities to relieve the petitioner immediately so that she could join the Senior Residency Course before the last date of admission.The Court observed that denying permission to pursue higher studies or career advancement solely on the ground of administrative inconvenience or temporary shortage of doctors, without balancing the...

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: March 2026

Nupur Agrawal

Tags