LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Quarterly Digest: July - September, 2026
Nupur Agrawal
22 Oct 2026 10:00 AM IST
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266 - 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 407Nominal IndexVinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266M/s Shyam and Shyam Oil Mills Private Limited v Gnet Impex Private Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 267Conflict with law Juvenile X v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 268Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026...
This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers
Subscribe Premium 
INR 1099+GST
Your support helps us to bring you more content at
an affordable subscription scheme !!!
All payment options available
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266 - 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
Nominal Index
Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266
M/s Shyam and Shyam Oil Mills Private Limited v Gnet Impex Private Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
Conflict with law Juvenile X v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 268
Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 269
Om Prakash Shakywal v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 270
Mohammad Usman v National Investigation Agency, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 271
Lrs Of Mr. Bharat Lakhani & Ors. v Vikas Garg; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
Jiya & Ors. v the Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 273
Tulsa Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 274
Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
Shubham Gurjar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 276
Matadeen Garg v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 277
Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan v Annu; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v/s The State Of Rajasthan and batch; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279
Surendra Kumar & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 280
Harshit Solanki v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 281
X v Y; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
Roshan Lal v Veni Ram & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
Vikas Modi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 284
Moola Ram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 285
Rajendra Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 286
State of Rajasthan v Premlal, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 287
Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr. v Varda & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 288
Dr. Uma Gupta v Satya Prakash Kumawat & Anr.; 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 289
Sushma Dayal v Praveen Lodha; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 290
Imran Mansoori v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 291
Sheikh Tarique v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 292
National Insurance Company Ltd. v Parmeshwar & Anr., and other connected appeal; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 293
Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 294
Ranjeet v Central Bureau of Investigation; 2026 LiveLaw(Raj) 295
Mohan Lal Sharma v Ashok Vardhan Sharma & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 296
P v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
Shri Mahadev Ji Kaluram Ji Ki Bawdi v Shri Milap Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 298
Barbdivya v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 299
Surendra Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 300
Anand Singh v Union of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 301
Ashok Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 302
Aasif Ali v Municipal Corporation & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 303
Smt. Swarna Kalra & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 304
Pavan Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 305
Manish Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 306
Suraj Singh Dhangar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 307
Ajay Arya & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 308
Mukesh v State & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 309
Rajaram Paliwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 310
Basant Hotels Private Limited v the State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 311
Anil Chopra v the Returning/assistant Returning Officer; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 312
Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 313
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
Babu Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 357
Sattar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 358
State of Rajasthan v Gopal Singh; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 359
Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 360
Phusaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 361
Manni Devi v Bhuli Devi & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 362
Rajendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 363
M/s S.S. Corporation v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 364
Nand Kishore v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 365
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
State of Rajasthan v Bhanwar Lal Jain; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 383
S v T; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 384
R v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 385
Indusind Bank Limited v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 386
Darshita Gupta v Consortium of National Law Universities and Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 387
Kanhaiya Lal v State Election Commission & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 388
Rohitash Meena v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 389
S v A; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 390
Pooran Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 391
Parmila Gupta v Jaipur Airport Authority & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 392
Shri Choth Mal Verma and Anr. v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 393
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Jeetendra Kumar Choudhary; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 394
Munni Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 395
Chairman cum Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v Jagdish Chandra Bissa; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 396
Mohd. Sharif & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 397
Gulam Mohd. V Gopal Traders & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 398
Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 399
Kanta Devi & Ors. v Parsaram & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 400
Bihari Lal v Navratanmal Bamb & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 402
Heera Mani v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 403
Deepak Meena v the Chairman cum Managing Director, JVVNL & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 404
E v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 405
Vinita Pooniya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 406
Vedprakash v Chittorgarh Central Coop. Bank Ltd. & Anr; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
Judgments/Orders
Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 266
The Rajasthan High Court has directed transport authorities to strictly enforce compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder for all passenger buses plying in the State, irrespective of whether they are registered in Rajasthan or any other State.
Observing that unauthorized modifications in buses have led to several fire incidents resulting in fatal accidents, the Court stressed that both transport authorities and transporters bear a responsibility to ensure that passenger vehicles conform to the prescribed statutory safety norms.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma observed,
“…so much more responsibility lies on the department to see that the norms are strictly complied with by the transporter and similarly responsibility also lies on transporter to see that the vehicles are in accordance with the norms laid down for the purpose of passenger buses.”
Title: M/s Shyam and Shyam Oil Mills Private Limited v Gnet Impex Private Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 267
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once pleadings are completed, and affidavits and relevant material has already come on record, the endeavour of the Court should ordinarily be to decide the application for temporary injunction itself rather than devoting time to decide the ad-interim injunction.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that if an elaborate hearing is required for considering the prayer for ad-interim protection, the Court might be in a position to finally decide the application for temporary injunction itself which would advance the object of expeditious justice and avoid unnecessary multiplicity of interlocutory proceedings.
“…the very object underlying an ad interim injunction is to grant immediate and short-lived protection in exceptional circumstances until the application for temporary injunction can be finally heard. Once notice has been served upon the opposite party, pleadings have been completed, replies have been filed and affidavits and relevant material have come on record, the endeavour of the Court should ordinarily be to decide the application for temporary injunction itself rather than devoting considerable judicial time to an elaborate adjudication of the ad interim prayer,” the Court said.
Title: Conflict with law Juvenile X v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 268
Raising apprehension of an 'intentional' lapse in investigation by the police, Rajasthan High Court recently upheld the rejection of bail to a 13-year old accused in a murder case.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania observed that despite complainant's written refusal for post-mortem at the relevant time, it was police's duty to conduct the Panchnama while handing over the body to the family.
“…though the complainant may have refused for post mortem at the relevant time by submitting a hand-written letter, but it was the duty of the police officer who was present at that time in the hospital to conduct the Panchnama, who did not conduct the same while handing over the body to the complainant and other family members for performing the funeral. There is a serious lacuna on the part of police which appears to be intentional in conducting the investigation in the case,” the Court said.
Title: Jeet Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 269
While rejecting bail in an alleged cyber crime case, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the crime was a result of complainant's greed and directed the Superintendent of Police to recover the cost of the investigation in the case from the complainant.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania opined that the reason behind successful commission of most of the cyber crimes was people's greed to earn unusual high returns, and to investigate the consequence of such greed, the State machinery had to be put into action.
“To investigate the consequences of such greed, the State has no other option, but to put its machinery into motion, however, precious public money cannot be allowed to be expended in investigating such offences which, prima facie have occurred due to greed of such persons.”
Title: Om Prakash Shakywal v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 270
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a writ petition challenging a recruitment process cannot be dismissed merely on the grounds of it becoming infructuous due to lapse of more than 6 months or the fact that subsequent selection processes were culminated.
“Although we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as regards the writ petition having become otiose and infructuous merely because more than six months time was lapsed or on the ground that further subsequent selection processes have been initiated and culminated, the same cannot be a reason for dismissal of writ petition. Law is well settled based on the legal maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit that no Court shall oust a litigant merely on account of pendency of the writ petition for several years. No person can be made to suffer on account of the delay in deciding the cases.”
The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision in Prabodh Verma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., to hold that, “writ petition would not be maintainable if a person is challenging appointment of candidate without impleading them as party to the writ petition”.
Rajasthan High Court Refuses Bail To 'Myanmar Nationals' Accused Of Trafficking Rohingya Girls Under Guise Of Marriage
Title: Mohammad Usman v National Investigation Agency, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 271
Rajasthan High Court denied bail to three men accused of being the residents of Myanmar and illegally importing Rohingya-origin girls to India under the false pretext of solemnizing their marriage and then selling them off.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, statements of the protected witnesses and the seriousness of the allegations, the rejection of bail had to be upheld.
Title: Lrs Of Mr. Bharat Lakhani & Ors. v Vikas Garg
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 272
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a Rent Tribunal's order permitting amendment of an eviction petition to incorporate reference to a postal receipt and acknowledgement due (AD) card that had already been filed along with the original petition but were omitted from the pleadings due to a clerical error.
Holding that marking documents already on record as exhibits does not prejudice the opposite party or enlarge the case of the litigant, Justice Farjand Ali observed that hyper-technical objections should not be allowed to defeat adjudication on merits.
The bench was of the opinion that the amendment neither changed the character of the eviction proceedings nor introduced a fresh cause of action, hence, permitting such exhibit marking did not enable the respondent (eviction-petitioner) to improve or embellish his case by introducing fresh evidence.
Title: Jiya & Ors. v the Govt. of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 273
The Rajasthan High Court has directed its Registry to not register any cases as “Criminal Writ Petition”, opining that there was no such concept provided in the Constitution of India.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma held that it was for the Court to examine the case for the purpose of placing them before the concerned roster.
“Registry has also entertained it as a Criminal Writ Petition, whereas there is no such concept of Criminal Writ Petition provided in the Constitution. A writ petition can be filed for raising the issues which may also relate to a criminal matter but the same would not be treated as a 'Criminal Writ Petition' and the same can only be registered as a writ petition alone. It is for the Court to examine the case or for the purpose of placing them before the concerned roster. Henceforth, the Registry is directed not to register any case as 'Criminal Writ Petition'". the court said.
Rajasthan High Court Imposes 3-Year Social Media Ban On Youth Booked For Morphing Minor's Photos
Title: Tulsa Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 274
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed a 3-year social media ban on a youth accused of morphing images of a minor and uploading them on social media with an intention to defame her.
FIR was registered against him under the relevant provisions of the BNS, POCSO Act, and the Information Technology Act.
“The applicant-accused shall submit an affidavit/undertaking before the trial Court for not using social media platform including facebook, instagram, thread, snapchat etc. for a period of three years and if it is found that the applicant-accused is using any of the social media platform in his own name or any fictitious name then his bail order may be recalled by the trial Court itself.
Title: Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 275
The Rajasthan High Court has held that experience gained by rendering medical services in Government Health institutions, and corresponding benefits, could not be denied to the concerned persons merely because their salary was routed through a charitable trust under an administrative arrangement approved by the State Government.
The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati observed that the mode of salary disbursement was not of legal significance since it could not eclipse the undisputed fact of actual service being rendered and experience being acquired.
Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail To Foreign MBBS Graduates Accused Of Securing Internships With Fake Clearance Certificates
Title: Shubham Gurjar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 276
The Rajasthan High Court has refused to grant bail to several foreign MBBS graduates accused of securing mandatory internships in government and private hospitals by using fake Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE) clearance certificates.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania observed, "Though, the petitioners are students, however, their admitted act of using fake certificates of FMGE clearly shows that despite having the professional degrees, they did the above mentioned serious act, which cannot be taken lightly in the given facts and circumstances."
Title: Matadeen Garg v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 277
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed Rs. 1,00,000 costs on the Department of Law and Legal Affairs, the High Court administration, Chief Accounts Officer (Directorate of Estate), and Director (Pension and Pensioners Welfare), for withholding the retirement benefits of a former trial court judge, who retired in 1999.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma directed the respondents to release the dues within 7 days, with an interest of 9% per annum, to the petitioner who was running in his 80s.
Title: Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan v Annu
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 278
The Rajasthan High Court has held that courts cannot direct educational boards to alter the date of birth recorded in school certificates, observing that such requests must first be examined by the concerned Board itself. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 278]
Setting aside a single judge's order directing the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, to change a student's date of birth in her Class X certificate, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma clarified that an aggrieved person may approach the civil court if dissatisfied with the Board's decision.
Title: Peer Mohammad Shah Jilani Dargah Samiti v/s The State Of Rajasthan and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions challenging show-cause and eviction notices issued to Mosques, Madrasas and Dargahs situated within 50km of the India-Pakistan border, observing that the matter pertained to national security and was not a case of religious discrimination. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279]
The court was hearing a batch of pleas by various Madrasas, Mosques, and Dargahs challenging validity of the eviction/vacation/ and show-cause notices issued by the state authorities, qua the petitioners' properties and constructions situated within a radius of approximately 50 km from the Indo–Pakistan border.
Justice Sameer Jain referred to Ministry of Home Affairs' notification of 11.10.2021, under Section 139 of the Border Security Force Act, as per which the Central Government enhanced and rationalized the territorial jurisdiction and operational powers of the Border Security Force in border areas, including regions extending up to 50 kilometres from the International Border.
"this Court holds that in matters involving national security, strict adherence to the traditional rigours of natural justice is not always warranted, and a pragmatic, situation responsive approach is permissible, provided that there exists material justifying such action. In the present case, sufficient procedural compliance has been made, and no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners, who themselves have abstained from participation," it held.
Dismissing the petitions court however directed constitution of a Committee comprising the District Collector, Superintendent of Police, and representative of the Border Security Force (BSF) of the area concerned, to examine cases (on individual basis) involving sensitive properties.
Title: Surendra Kumar & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 280
Observing that mining leaseholders bear a responsibility to ensure that illegal mining is not carried out in the areas allotted to them, the Rajasthan High Court has cautioned that leaseholders found indulging in unauthorised extraction may face cancellation of their leases. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 279]
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma further clarified that, in the event of such violations coming to light, the Mining Engineer would be at liberty to cancel the leases of the erring mining operators.
Title: Harshit Solanki v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 281
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the denial of compassionate appointment to the son of a government employee who suffered 75% disability following a brain stroke, holding that compassionate appointment cannot be extended to disabilities falling outside the eight categories exhaustively enumerated under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Permanent Total Disabled Government Servants Rules, 2023. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 281]
A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah observed that although welfare legislations ordinarily merit liberal interpretation, courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce categories consciously omitted by the legislature.
“A conjoint reading of Rules 2(b) and 2(f) indicates that the Legislature has consciously restricted the benefit of compassionate appointment to cases where permanent total disability arises solely and directly from an accident while on duty and is of the nature specifically enumerated under Rule 2(f)... Such legislative drafting manifests a conscious policy choice to confine this exceptional benefit only to those situations expressly contemplated by the Rule,” the Court held.
Title: X v Y
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 282
While dispensing with the requirement of serving notice upon the husband in a transfer petition in a matrimonial matter, Rajasthan High Court observed that in many matrimonial cases, transfer petitions remained pending merely at the stage of service. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 282]
It was held that issuance of notice in matrimonial transfer petitioner and keeping such matters pending for years, particularly when interim stay orders continued, did not advance cause of justice.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further opined that in matrimonial disputes, where one spouse was already appearing before the Courts situated at the residential place of other spouse, insisting upon continuation of connected matrimonial proceedings at different stations was cumbersome and impractical that prolonged parties' agony and delayed substantive justice.
Title: Roshan Lal v Veni Ram & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 283
While upholding appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order 39 Rule 7 CPC, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the power was to facilitate effective adjudication of the issues arising at the interlocutory stage, and the Commissioner's report did not confer or extinguish any substantive right of either party.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that neither party was relieved from their obligation to establish their case by leading admissible evidence during trial because of the findings in the Commissioner's report.
Title: Vikas Modi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 284
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a land is notified in the Master Plan as a 'Green Belt', every authority exercising powers relating to land use, conversion, regularization, allotment of pattas, etc. is bound to act within the four corners of the Master Plan and any action contrary to the same would be illegal and liable to be quashed.
“Master Plan prepared under the planning statutes is not merely an advisory document or a statement of governmental intent, it is a statutory instrument having binding force upon all authorities and citizens alike…Green Belt areas constitute vital ecological and environmental assets of a city and their protection is not merely a statutory obligation, but also a constitutional imperative flowing from the principles underlying Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to dilute or defeat such protection through unauthorized administrative actions must be dealt with firmly.”
The Court further opined that the doctrine of bona fide purchaser could not be invoked to validate an illegal transaction. Similarly, principle of estoppel could not operate against a statue or compel a public authority to perpetuate an action contrary to law.
The Court also rejected the argument of violation of Article 300A and held that the constitutional protection did not extend to preservation of rights created in violation of law.
Title: Moola Ram v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 285
The Rajasthan High Court recently permitted a murder convict lodged in an open air camp to solemnise his marriage with a woman convict who has been released on bail, observing that the right to marry is an intrinsic facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed,
"solemnization of marriage between two consenting adults is an intrinsic facet of right of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The institution of marriage finds recognition across all major religions and cultures and has constituted a foundational unit of society."
Title: Rajendra Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 286
The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that Station House Officers (SHOs) cannot not act as a mere "post office" by forwarding the documents and charge sheet to the Court, prepared based on the probe conducted by the Investigating Officer.
It said that they are duty bound to supervise, check and ensure that the investigation was conducted in an impartial, fair and expeditious manner, in accordance with law.
“A fair and impartial investigation is the bedrock of justice…Therefore every Station House Officer (for short “SHO”) and Investigation Officer has a constitutional and legal duty to ensure the investigation to be fair, transparent and based only on evidence. Hence, it is their statutory duty to conduct the investigation without bias, fear or favour and in accordance with law...
SHO of any Police Station cannot act as a mere post office, simply forwarding documents to the concerned Court. The SHO is duty bound to supervise and check whether the investigation has been conducted by the Investigating Officer in a proper manner or not..." the court said.
Rajasthan High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Death For Wife's Murder, Cites Lapses In Probe
Title: State of Rajasthan v Premlal, and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 287
The Rajasthan High Court recently acquitted a man sentenced to death by a trial court for the murder of his wife, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to his guilt and that the investigation suffered from serious lapses.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma reiterated that suspicion howsoever strong, could not replace legal proof and where two views were reasonably possible on the evidence, the once favouring the accused prevails.
“…on an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish several essential links in the chain of circumstances. The last seen circumstance remains doubtful; the motive remains unproved; the investigation suffers from material omissions and procedural irregularities; the recoveries are surrounded by serious suspicion; the electronic evidence lacks proper foundational proof; and the medical evidence does not conclusively support the prosecution theory to the exclusion of every other possibility.”
Title: Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Anr. v Varda & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 288
After around 35 years of the incident, Rajasthan High Court upheld the liability of the State for paying compensation in a case of death by electrocution due to a live wire that had broken and fallen on the ground.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Taneja took into account the fact that the electricity line had not been repaired for a long time, and there was also negligence on part of the deputed line-man, who was unavailable on duty at the relevant time.
While underscoring the principle of strict liability, the Court highlighted that since there was escape and transmission of electricity i.e. a dangerous substance, that caused harm, the State was liable.
Title: Dr. Uma Gupta v Satya Prakash Kumawat & Anr.
Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 289
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an order rejecting an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of a witness for cross-examination is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, cannot be challenged in revision proceedings under Section 397 CrPC.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside an order of the revisional court which had permitted the accused in a cheque bounce case to cross-examine the complainant, after holding that the revision petition itself was not maintainable.
Title: Sushma Dayal v Praveen Lodha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 290
The Rajasthan High Court has held that proceedings before a Court established under the Negotiable Instruments Act and a Commercial Court stand on an equal footing, and an accused cannot be denied access to original records necessary for his defence merely because they have been summoned in parallel proceedings.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the right to a fair trial includes access to materials required for effective cross-examination and defence, and set aside a trial court order refusing to summon records relating to a criminal case alleging interpolation of a cheque.
“Once the original record is available and the matter pertains to interpolation in the cheque and counter-foil, certainly the original cheque has to be put across to the complainant in the cross-examination and the same purpose cannot be solved by submitting photocopy or the certified copy. Therefore, it is the right of the petitioner to put up his defence and best opportunity is required to be given to him,” Court said.
Title: Imran Mansoori v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 291
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a party stands acquitted in a gambling case, based on withdrawal of the criminal case, there is no reason to retain the seized money in the Treasury or in the Government Fund.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand thus directed the authorities to release the amount seized from the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall disclose the details of the source of receipt of the amount.
The Court held that the details submitted by the petitioner shall be verified by the Income Tax Department, and if the explanation was not found to be satisfactory, appropriate action could be taken against the petitioner.
Title: Sheikh Tarique v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 292
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a medical student who sought permission to appear in the remaining papers of the MBBS Final Professional Part-II examination, observing that the Court cannot ignore the interests of patients who may eventually be treated by a candidate who has failed to clear the course despite repeated attempts over fourteen years.
A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Maneesh Sharma held that considerations such as the appellant's career prospects and financial hardship could not outweigh the larger public interest. It observed:
“A court cannot remain unmindful of the fate of patients who would be treated by a physician who has been unable to demonstrate the minimum competence prescribed, despite attempts spread over fourteen years.”
Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. v Parmeshwar & Anr., and other connected appeal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 293
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an insurance company cannot avoid liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a fake driving licence unless it proves the allegation by examining the concerned licensing authority.
Justice Ashutosh Kumar was hearing two appeals filed by the National Insurance Company Limited challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in favour of the claimants. The insurer had contended that there had been a breach of the insurance policy as the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
The Court noted that the insurance company had failed to summon the licensing authority to verify whether the licence in question had actually been issued by it. The Court observed:
“…Insurance Company did not try to call the licencing authority to prove or verify the fact that the driving licence attached as Exhibit-10 was not issued by it. Therefore, while relying upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Moda Ram & Ors. (supra), in the present case, it cannot be presumed that the driving licence issued in favour of the respondent-driver was a fake one as the Insurance Company failed to call the licencing authority to prove or verify the fact that such authority did not issue that licence.”
Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 294
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates seeking appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor (Vyakaran), Assistant Professor (Sahitya) and Assistant Professor (Samanya Sanskrit), holding that courts cannot expand the eligibility qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules.
Justice Ganesh Ram Meena observed that the State, as an employer, is the best judge of the qualifications required for recruitment and that the Court cannot read into the rules qualifications that have not been prescribed.
Addressing the petitioners' argument regarding the appointment of guest faculty, the Court held that even if persons lacking the requisite qualifications had been engaged as guest faculty, such appointments could not form the basis for regular recruitment. The Court observed,
“In case, the respondents have engaged any candidate without having requisite qualification as provided under the Rules, such appointments of guest faculty cannot be made basis for the regular recruitment without holding qualification of NET or SET in that particular concerned subject.”
Title: Ranjeet v Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Raj) 295
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR against two men, observing that the very origin and basis of the criminal proceedings no longer existed, since the Single Judge's order directing investigation against them had already been set aside and the underlying writ petition itself stood dismissed.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held:
"The origin and genesis of the impugned FIR is no more in existence. The order dated 13.01.2010 directing the investigation in the alleged offence and registration of the FIR was quashed by the Division Bench vide order dated 10.11.2010, while remanding the matter back to the Single Bench and the main matter seeking registration of FIR against the petitioner has already been dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2026 for non-compliance of peremptory order."
Title: Mohan Lal Sharma v Ashok Vardhan Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 296
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a former school principal, in a cheque dishonour case after noting that he had resigned from the post before the cheque was issued.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that once the petitioner had resigned from the post, his employer-employee relationship with the school came to an end and he could not be fastened with criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
"Criminal prosecution of any person is a serious matter as it affects the liberty of that person. No greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case... the petitioner is neither liable nor responsible for the cheque in question issued, if any, under his signatures, after his resignation from the post of Principal of the School."
Rajasthan High Court Quashes Rape FIR After Prosecutrix Says Case Was Filed Due To Family Pressure
Title: P v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a rape case after noting that the petitioner and the prosecutrix had married even before the registration of the FIR, were now living together in a happy and stable matrimonial relationship, and that the prosecutrix stated the FIR had been lodged due to pressure from her family. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 297]
Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the parties had married in 2020 and that their relationship had endured for nearly six years despite the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The Court held that permitting the prosecution to continue would only cause unnecessary hardship to both parties and jeopardise their settled matrimonial life.
"Having voluntarily chosen to live together long ago, and having reunited despite the intervening litigation, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue merely because the trial has reached an advanced stage."
Title: Shri Mahadev Ji Kaluram Ji Ki Bawdi v Shri Milap Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 298
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a trial court order rejecting an application seeking police assistance for the implementation and enforcement of an interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner in a dispute concerning renovation of the Lord Mahadev Temple.
Justice Farjand Ali held that there is a marked distinction between proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which are punitive in nature, and a prayer seeking police assistance for implementation of an existing injunction order.
The Court observed that once an injunction order has been passed, issuance of ancillary directions to ensure its effective implementation falls within the supervisory and inherent powers of the Court. It emphasized that the majesty of law lies not merely in passing judicial orders but equally in ensuring that they are respected, honoured and effectively implemented.
Title: Barbdivya v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 299
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered the Director General of Police to conduct an inquiry in the matter of a Police Inspector making reels with his son, and uploading on social media platforms, to create fan following.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that the alleged acts constitute 'very serious misconduct' on part of the officer.
“A Police Inspector indulged in preparing reels and further uploading them on social media, whether Instagram, Facebook or any other social media platform, with the assistance of his son, thereby creating a fan following, which itself is a very serious misconduct. The DGP, Rajasthan, is directed to conduct an inquiry and send a report to this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Title: Surendra Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 300
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a Station House Officer (SHO) under Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that a bona fide failure to produce a case diary due to non-receipt of communication from the Public Prosecutor cannot attract criminal liability. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 300]
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 175 IPC and cautioned that treating every bona fide lapse by police officers as an intentional omission would result in "a flood of such kind of complaints" against them.
At the same time, the Court also highlighted the significance of finding a solution to the issue of police officials not obeying court directions.
Title: Anand Singh v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 301
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an undertrial prisoner does not forfeit the right to alienate his property and continues to enjoy his rights even in jail wherein he can validly execute a registered General or Special Power of Attorney and his attorney can legally sell the property.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed,
"the law is clear that a pre-convict/undertrial prisoner does not forfeit the right to alienate his property. He can validly execute a registered General or Special Power of Attorney from jail, through the Jail Superintendent and his attorney can thereafter, legally sell the property. The only requirement is strict adherence to procedural safeguards of attestation, registration and absence of any court attachment".
Revision Court Cannot Direct Trial Court To Take Cognizance Against Accused: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Ashok Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 302
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot direct the Trial Court to take cognizance under Section 398 CrPC, as it merely empowers courts to order further inquiry.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside the order directing the Trial Court to take cognizance for cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. The bench empahsized;
"Revisional Court/Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge cannot issue a direction to the Trial Court to take cognizance against the accused. If the Revisional Court was of the view that the order passed by the learned Trial Court was perverse, the matter could have been remitted to the Trial Court for passing fresh order on the basis of the evidence available on the record".
Title: Aasif Ali v Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 303
Rajasthan High Court disposed of the PIL that raised the issue of unlawful slaughtering of animals and sought regulation of unlicensed meat shops operating in Jodhpur, opining that there was no need for any inquiry or interference in the minute aspects of regulatory framework governing meat trade in the city.
At the same time, the division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed that in case any shop was found to be operating without requisite license, the concerned person shall be informed of the requirement to obtain such a license, and the application shall be considered strictly as per prescribed law.
Title: Smt. Swarna Kalra & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions
Citaiton: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 304
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed charges under Section 305 IPC against teachers accused of abetting the suicide of a Class XII student, holding that mere reprimand or disciplinary action for poor attendance, academic performance or indiscipline cannot amount to abetment of suicide in the absence of instigation, intentional aid or the requisite mens rea. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 304]
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that the relationship between a teacher and a student is founded on discipline, guidance and academic supervision, and teachers are duty-bound to maintain discipline in educational institutions.
“A teacher is duty bound to maintain discipline and may legitimately reprimand a student for irregular attendance, poor academic performance or indiscipline. Such acts, performed in the ordinary course of discharging professional duties, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide.”
Title: Pavan Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 305
The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed the recovery of ₹3 lakh compensation from a police officer in a POCSO case, holding that no adverse order could have been passed against him without first issuing notice and affording him an opportunity of hearing.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the trial court had violated the principles of natural justice by directing recovery of the compensation from the petitioner-police officer without following due process.
Title: Manish Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 306
The Rajasthan High Court has held that mere non-registration of a vehicle cannot be a ground to deny interim custody to its owner if he is not an accused in the concerned NDPS case.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ordered release of an unregistered vehicle seized by the police in an NDPS case, subject to the condition that the owner gets it registered within 30 days and does not ply it on public roads until such registration.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam, the Court noted that where a vehicle is stolen and used for transporting contraband, or where contraband is recovered from a third-party occupant without any allegation that it was stored or transported with the owner's knowledge or connivance, the owner is ordinarily entitled to interim custody, provided he is not arrayed as an accused.
Title: Suraj Singh Dhangar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 307
The Rajasthan High Court has held that non-supply of written grounds of arrest does not automatically entitle an accused to bail unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 307]
The Court observed that while written grounds of arrest are ordinarily required, the real test is whether the accused was made aware of the grounds of arrest, whether the factum of arrest was communicated to the family members, and whether the alleged procedural lapse caused any actual prejudice.
A bench of Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur made the observations while rejecting the bail applications of persons accused of facilitating the use of unfair means during a recruitment examination conducted by the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS).
"Though the petitioners dispute the sufficiency of compliance, no material has been placed before this Court to prima facie establish that they remained unaware of the accusation forming the basis of their arrest or that they were disabled from effectively exercising any constitutional or statutory remedy on account of the alleged procedural lapse."
Larger Conspiracy Uncovered During Probe Justifies Registration Of Second FIR: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Ajay Arya & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 308
The Rajasthan High Court has held that merely because the material leading to registration of a subsequent FIR surfaced during the investigation of an earlier FIR, the later FIR does not become impermissible. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 308]
While dismissing a quashing petition, Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that where subsequent information discloses a distinct incident, a separate criminal activity, or a larger conspiracy that does not form part of the same transaction, registration of a second FIR is legally permissible.
Title: Mukesh v State & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 309
While setting aside charges framed against a man for offences including repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, the Rajasthan High Court held that where both parties are conscious that the prosecutrix's first marriage is subsisting, it would ordinarily be difficult to conclude that she was induced into a physical relationship solely on the promise of marriage.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur was hearing a revision petition challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Bikaner, framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 450, 420, 376(2)(n), 366 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
“In the present case, it is an admitted position that the complainant was legally married to Ishwar Ram and that no decree of divorce had been obtained at the relevant point of time. Consequently, any alleged promise of marriage could not have been lawfully fulfilled unless the existing marriage had first bee dissolved in accordance with law. Prima facie, therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant's consent was obtained solely on a legally enforceable promise of marriage.”
Threatening Or Socially Boycotting Witnesses Strikes At Rule Of Law: Rajasthan High Court Orders IO To Act On Complaints
Title: Rajaram Paliwal v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 310
The Rajasthan High Court has observed that unlawful societal practices such as coercion, intimidation and social ostracism strike at the very foundation of the rule of law, and that threatening or socially boycotting witnesses during an investigation amounts to a serious interference with the administration of criminal justice. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 310]
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Farjand Ali directed the Investigating Officer (IO) to objectively and expeditiously examine any complaints by witnesses alleging intimidation, coercion or social boycott, and to take preventive, protective and penal measures in accordance with law.
“…any endeavour to obstruct the course of investigation, terrorise witnesses or perpetuate unlawful social sanctions shall be viewed with the seriousness it deserves and the competent authorities shall remain under an obligation to deal with such conduct in accordance with the mandate of law as well as the spirit underlying the directions issued by this Court in Deepa Ram Meghwal (supra) and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini (supra).”
Udaipur Hills "Brutally Cut" For Hotels, City's Condition 'Pitiable': Rajasthan High Court
Title: Basant Hotels Private Limited v the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 311
The Rajasthan High Court has expressed anguish over the large-scale destruction of Udaipur's hills, observing that the city's hills and mountains have been "brutally cut" and replaced by hotels, resorts and commercial establishments, reducing the city to a "pitiable state."
A single-judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain made the observations while hearing a petition filed by Basant Hotels Pvt. Ltd., which has challenged the application of the 2018 Hill Policy to its hotel project and alleged hostile discrimination by the authorities.
"...the Court is deeply pained to observe that the city of Udaipur, historically renowned for its lakes, mountains/hills (Magris), and wildlife sanctuaries, has been reduced to a pitiable state. Under the guise of the sustainable development theory and arbitrarily crafted policies, hundreds of hotels, resorts, and commercial properties have mushroomed near sanctuaries, sensitive ecosystems, lakes, and upon the hills."
Title: Anil Chopra v the Returning/assistant Returning Officer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 312
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an application filed by the Returning Officer, District Magistrate-cum-Returning Officer, Chief Electoral Officer and the Election Commission of India seeking deletion of their names from an election petition challenging the 2024 Lok Sabha election from the Jaipur Rural Parliamentary constituency.
A bench of Justice Vinod Kumar Bharwani opined that the authorities could not be removed from the proceedings, as the election petition was based on conflicting official records regarding rejected postal ballots; hence, their presence was necessary for the adjudication of the dispute.
Title: Manmeet Singh Ahluwalia v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 313
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the extension of an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer's suspension, holding that it reflected "personal vendetta" on the part of certain high-ranking officials and amounted to an abuse of administrative power.
The Court imposed ₹5 lakh as exemplary costs on the Union Government and directed that the officer be considered reinstated after the expiry of the initial 90-day suspension period, with consequential service benefits.
The division bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman and Justice Anuroop Singhi observed that the suspensions were extended only to convert it into a punishment and to deprive the petitioner from his right of being considered for promotion.
Further, the petitioner was directed to be treated as being reinstated from the expiry of initial 90 days suspension period, and if found eligible, be promoted from the same date as of his juniors.
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."
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.”
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.
Mere Variation In Disability Assessments Cannot Prove Fraud: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Employee's Termination
Title: Babu Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 357
While setting aside the termination of a disabled employee, Rajasthan High Court held that a mere variation between two legally valid medical assessment reports, could not by itself be treated as proof of fraud by the employee in securing the employment.
The bench of Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit opined that in case of such variations, if the earlier disability certificate required reconsideration, the matter should be dealt with as per the statutory framework under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (the “Act”), rather than treating the former one extinguished in light of the latter.
“The certificate issued under the statutory framework is not a document which can simply be ignored by an administrative authority without examining its legal status. The statutory scheme also contemplates a mechanism for questioning a decision of the certifying authority. Therefore, if the respondents were of the opinion that the earlier certificate was incorrect or required reconsideration, the matter was required to be dealt with in accordance with the statutory framework and applicable procedure, rather than treating the later medical opinion as automatically extinguishing the legal effect of the earlier certificate.”
Title: Sattar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 358
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the power of recall under Section 311 CrPC can be exercised by criminal courts even after the evidence of both sides is closed. It held that the consideration under the provision is not whether the evidence is closed, but whether the concerned evidence appeared essential for a just decision of the case.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman further opined that restriction under Section 362 CrPC, on criminal courts altering or reviewing their judgment or final orders once signed, does not prevent the Court from exercising its independent power under Section 311 CrPC during pendency of the trial and before the pronouncement of the final order/judgment.
“…during the pendency of the trial and before the final judgment is pronounced and signed, the Court is not rendered functus officio merely because the evidence of a particular witness had earlier been closed. The provisions of Sections 311 and 362 Cr.P.C. operate in distinct fields and are required to be harmoniously construed. Hence, Section 362 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked as an absolute bar against exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon, recall or re-examine a witness whose evidence had earlier been closed, where the Court is satisfied that such evidence is essential for arriving at a just decision in the case.”
Title: State of Rajasthan v Gopal Singh
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 359
While upholding trial court's decision that acquitted an NDPS accused, Rajasthan High Court observed that unless it was established by the prosecution that the accused had conscious knowledge of his house/premises/vehicle/property being used for storage, concealment or transportation of contraband, offence under Section 25 was not made out.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman held that the phrase “knowingly” used under Section 25, NDPS Act, was of paramount importance and the essential ingredient of knowledge could not be assumed merely based on the ownership of the property.
“Ownership of the vehicle without any material linking the petitioner to the transportation and possession of the contraband goods cannot make him criminally liable and filing of charge-sheet against the owner on the ground of mere registration of the vehicle is, therefore, legally unsustainable. Knowledge or conscious permission forms the sine-qua-non for invocation of Section 25 of NDPS Act.”
Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 360
The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed the order of the trial court and the revisional court to hold that no prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC was required before taking cognizance against the appellant-police officer who was accused of severely beating the respondent while the latter was allegedly under illegal detention.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania affirmed that the act done by the petitioner could not be said to be in performance of his official duty, rather he acted beyond the same.
“…for the purpose of application of Section 197, a sine qua non is that the public servant is accused of any offence which had been committed by him in “discharge of his official duty”. The said expression would clearly indicate that Section 197 of the CrPC would not apply to a case if a public servant is accused of any offence which is de hors or not connected to the discharge of his or her official duty.”
Title: Phusaram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 361
Rajasthan High Court held that where confiscation process had begun under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (“Rules”) and the liability/penalty payable in relation to the vehicle was determined, the vehicle could be released only upon payment of such statutory amount and not merely on personal security.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu also held that criminal prosecution and confiscation proceedings under the mining laws operate separately and independently of each other. Hence, pendency or outcome of criminal prosecution did not postpone or nullify the proceedings undertaken under the mining laws.
"Another aspect requiring consideration is whether pendency of the criminal prosecution affects the statutory proceedings for confiscation and recovery under the mining laws. The criminal prosecution and the confiscation proceedings undertaken under the mining laws operate in distinct fields and serve different purposes. Criminal prosecution is directed towards determination of the criminal liability of the offender and imposition of punishment in accordance with law. Confiscation proceedings, on the other hand, concern the property or instrumentality involved in the illegal activity and are intended to provide an effective statutory mechanism for dealing with such property and preventing its further use in unlawful activities. They also serve as an effective deterrent against repeated violations of the mining laws. The confiscation mechanism is, therefore, an independent statutory remedy operating alongside the criminal prosecution"
Title: Manni Devi v Bhuli Devi & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 362
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an interim order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (“RAA”) in a time-barred appeal, opining that interim stay in a time-barred appeal could be passed only in extreme circumstances of a given case where the order in appeal had some serious consequences.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that without condoning the delay in such time-barred appeal, the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same.
“Unless the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, the appeal cannot be said to have come into existence in the eyes of law. In the absence of a validly instituted appeal, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and decide a time barred appeal on merits. Hence, unless delay is condoned in accordance with law, the appeal cannot be treated as having been validly instituted.”
Title: Rajendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 363
Rajasthan High Court has held that while it was true that a court cannot direct the police to conduct an investigation in a particular manner, however the reasons given by a court in its order directing further investigation must not be itself construed as a direction for point-wise investigation.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu was hearing a petition seeking quashing of an order by the Magistrate that directed further investigation in the matter filed against the petitioner.
"In the present case, the learned trial Court, while considering the application seeking further investigation, has observed that the investigating agency, while filing the negative final report, had not conducted investigation with regard to the necessary documents, particularly the voters list and the relevant pattas. It was further observed that the material in question had not been sent for FSL examination.
It was opined that these were the reasons provided by the magistrate while allowing the application for further investigation, without directing any particular mode or manner of investigation to be adopted by the investigation officer.
Title: M/s S.S. Corporation v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 364
The Rajasthan High Court has held that repeated notices seeking payment of outstanding dues cannot substitute a proper notice informing a contractor that failure to comply could result in blacklisting or debarment from future tenders.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside an order against the petitioner that debarred its participation in any further tenders of the respondent-department on account of non-payment of certain dues despite several notices, in the background that no opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the order.
“The petitioner was served with a brief show cause notice levelling certain charges against him. Thereafter, without providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, straightaway the impugned order has been passed by the respondents.”
Title: Nand Kishore v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 365
While rejecting a bail application in an NDPS matter, Rajasthan High Court affirmed that compliance under Section 42 of the NDPS Act (“Act”), may be postponed for a reasonable period, where the information was received by the police office while being on patrol duty or otherwise on move, and immediate action was called for.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Karnail Singh v State of Karyana which observed,
“…where information is received while the officer is on patrol duty or otherwise on the move and calls for immediate action, compliance with Section 42 may, in an emergent situation, be postponed for a reasonable period. However, total non-compliance with the requirements of Section 42(1) and (2) is impermissible.”
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.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Bhanwar Lal Jain
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 383
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) in dispute relating to service benefits, opining that the jurisdiction of PLA could only be invoked for redressal of grievances that dealt with “public utility services” as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the “Act”).
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing challenge against an order passed by the PLA, Merta, Nagaur, in which the Public Heath Engineering Department was directed to grant service benefits to the respondent since the initial date of his appointment.
Title: S v T
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 384
Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition by a wife, seeking transfer of divorce proceedings from Alwar to Jaipur opining that that merely because petitioner had claimed to be not financially well-off, it could not be accepted that she was unable or incapable of travelling, especially when the respondent-husband was ready to pay off her expenses for such travel.
The bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali also took note of the fact that the petitioner was not a permanent resident of Jaipur and was allegedly residing there in a live-in relationship with another man.
Title: R v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 385
The Rajasthan High Court has allowed quashing of an FIR for the offence of rape and under POCSO Act, on the ground of compromise reached between parties, taking into account the past cordial relationship between them as well as their marriage and consequentially bleak chances of successful prosecution.
The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman opined that it was highly unlikely that the victim would support the case during trial, hence, continuing with the proceedings would be a futile exercise, that would unnecessarily burden the judicial system, causing wastage of time and resources of trial court.
While underscoring the principle that does not allow compromise in heinous cases, the Court observed,
“However, this principle is not absolute in the sent that the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers as per Section 482 if the CrP.C. is empowered to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise in suitable cases…Such cases would be those in which the matter is largely personal in nature or the offence, though falling within a serious provision, is not in substance a serious offence from a social point of view. If the Court is of the opinion that the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but a mere formality and that the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak because of the compromise between the parties, and that no useful purpose is served in keeping proceedings pending…it may exercise its discretion to quash…”
Title: Indusind Bank Limited v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 386
The Rajasthan High Court has directed the police officials to take all possible endeavours to restore the possession of a mortgaged property forcibly taken over by loan defaulters from the bank, which had lawful authority over it in terms of the SARFAESI Act.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that respondent-borrowers had used "muscle power" to take over the property and an FIR was also registered against them in this regard. However, even after passing of considerable time, no steps were taken by the police.
Title: Darshita Gupta v Consortium of National Law Universities and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 387
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a CLAT 2026 candidate seeking modification of her reservation category from Unreserved General-Women to General-Rajasthan Domicile, after the first provisional list was already declared by the CLAT-Consortium.
The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma observed that a belated correction or modification of an application form, especially change of reservation category, post expiry of the cut-off date would erode the sanctity of the admission process, and hence could not be allowed.
Title: Kanhaiya Lal v State Election Commission & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 388
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition challenging rejection of Petitioner's nomination papers for the election of Ward Member, Municipal Board Brij Nagar, District Deeg, opining that as per the bar under Article 243-ZG, no election to any municipality could be called into question except by filing an Election Petition,
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that as per Section 31, of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (“the Act”), improper rejection or acceptance of nomination paper was a ground to declare elections void, and as per the statutory bar under Article 243-ZG, the Court did not have jurisdiction to examine the petition.
Title: Rohitash Meena v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 389
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of the State that stopped and forfeited petitioner's entire pension on the ground of a conviction and imprisonment under the Prevention of Corruption Act (“the Act”), in the background of the fact that no notice was serviced upon the petition before passing of the order.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma affirmed that even where conviction stood proven, petitioner had the right to put forth mitigating circumstances before the concerned authority for consideration regarding the nature and extent of penalty.
Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree After Estranged Couple Reconciles, Restores Marriage
Title: S v A
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 390
While quoting Mahabharata, Rajasthan High Court reversed a divorce decree in light of the post-facto reconciliation reached between the couple for the welfare of their minor daughter, and opined that while administering justice, the Court could not lose sight of the fact that matrimonial litigation was not merely competing legal claims but involved human relations.
The division bench of Justice Uma Shanker Vyas and Justice Sameer Jain observed that a child's welfare is best served when the parents' differences were replaced with understanding, responsibility and mutual respect. Matrimonial disputes shall not become an irreversible barrier where parties themselves found a path towards reconciliation.
“Marriage, in the Hindu mythology has never been regarded as a mere contract between two individuals; it is a sacred sacrament, a sanskara, in which two souls undertake to walk together through the journey of life…reconciliation is not a surrender to the past; it is a conscious choice to give the future another chance. Where two persons, after traversing the difficult path of discord, voluntarily choose to walk together once again, the law should, wherever permissible, facilitate that journey towards peace and restoration.”
Title: Pooran Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors, and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 391
The Rajasthan High Court has held that while exercising powers under Section 125 Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (the “Act”), the Registrar cannot make such interference that curtails or undermines the autonomy of the society.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma was hearing a petition challenging the orders by which the petitioner's regularisation as a Class IV employee of the Central Cooperative Bank Limited was cancelled and his services were terminated.
Title: Parmila Gupta v Jaipur Airport Authority & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 392
The Rajasthan High Court has granted a last opportunity to a woman to lead her evidence in a land acquisition case pending for over 12 years, subject to her depositing Rs. 10,000 in the Junior Advocates Welfare Fund and planting 25 shade-bearing trees in a public area.
A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition challenging an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, which had closed the petitioner's opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examination in a land acquisition reference.
Title: Shri Choth Mal Verma and Anr. v Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 393
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered transfer of 25% monthly salary of a deceased employee's former wife, to his mother's account, after the wife remarried and allegedly abandoned the parents of the deceased, despite securing compassionate appointment after his death.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that after availing benefit of compassionate appointment based on an undertaking that she would maintain other family members too, the wife could not disassociate herself from the obligation that formed the basis of the appointment.
“Her subsequent departure from the matrimonial home and remarriage, coupled with the admitted failure to maintain the petitioners, is nothing but apparent violation of fundamental spirit of scheme of compassionate appointment. It cannot be countenanced that, after the death of her husband, the daughter-in-law, having secured compassionate appointment in his place, may thereafter abandon her old aged in-laws and leave them at the mercy of destiny.”
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Jeetendra Kumar Choudhary
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 394
The Rajasthan High Court has held that State can withhold the appointment of a person against whom a criminal case is pending, since it could not be presumed that in a pending criminal case, a person seeking employment would be acquitted.
The bench of former Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekha Sharma, opined that if a person, who was facing criminal charges, was given employment, it would send a wrong message to other persons because such person's character could not be said to be clean and would be in cloud till he was acquitted.
Title: Munni Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 395
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a candidate for the post of Class-IV teacher, who was seeking change of her category from OBC to General while contending that the mistake was inadvertent committed by the e-mitra operator who filled her form, and was not deliberate on her part.
The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sandeep Shah affirmed that the status of a candidate in a competitive selection had to remain consistent throughout the process. It was observed that the petitioner was given enough opportunities to rectify the error, however, the rectification application was moved only after the declaration of the result.
“The fact that the appellant waited for the declaration of the result itself reflects that the appellant had purposely chosen not to change the category in the form filled up by her.”
Title: Chairman cum Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. v Jagdish Chandra Bissa
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 396
Rajasthan High Court upheld a single judge order directing the State to reimburse the respondent for the entire cost of the stents implanted during his treatment at the government hospital which were procured from a private supplier due to unavailability at the hospital.
While underscoring the right to healthcare and affordable treatment as part of Article 21, the division bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur observed that the provisions relating to reimbursement of medical treatment had to be construed liberally.
Title: Mohd. Sharif & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 397
While dismissing a petition which was referred to a larger bench to decide a substantial question of law, Rajasthan High Court held that mere formulation or reference of a substantial question of law did not, by itself, compel the Court to adjudicate the matter in case subsequent events had rendered the matter infructuous and the controversy merely academic.
The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal, Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sameer Jain, opined that a constitutional court did not pronounce on question of law in factual vacuum, particularly when the answer did not alter the position of parties, neither resulted in any effective relief.
“The mere pendency of a reference for a long period cannot by itself justify adjudication of an otherwise academic question. The Court must first ascertain whether a live lis survives and whether determination of the referred question would have any operative consequence in the present proceedings. Where subsequent statutory developments, efflux of time and intervening circumstances have extinguished the controversy, the question ought to be left open for determination in an appropriate case where its adjudication would have an actual legal consequence.”
Title: Gulam Mohd. V Gopal Traders & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 398
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an authenticated bank return memo bearing the bank's seal and signature can be produced and exhibited later in a cheque-dishonour case to correct an inadvertent defect in an earlier return memo, and such subsequent production does not amount to filling a lacuna in the complainant's case.
Justice Sunil Beniwal further observed that merely exhibiting a document does not amount to admitting or proving it as evidence. The purpose of exhibiting a document is to mark it for identification, while its admissibility and evidentiary value have to be determined separately in accordance with law.
Title: Amar Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 399
While underscoring right to fair trial under Article 21, Rajasthan High Court held that if the prosecution was relying upon the contents of a DVD/pen drive which were also submitted along with the charge-sheet, the accused had to be mandatorily given a cloned copy of the DVD/pen drive, to enable him to present an effective defence during the trial.
“…all documents including “electronic record” produced for the inspection of the Court along-with the police report and which prosecution proposes to use against the accused must be furnished to the accused as per the mandate of Section 207 of the 1973 Code. The concomitant is that the contents of the DVD/pen drive must be furnished to the accused, which can be done in the form of cloned copy of the DVD /pendrive.”
At the same time, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that in cases where the issue of privacy of the complainant/victim/prosecutrix or his/her identity was involved, the Court was justified in providing the inspection of such DVD/Pen drive only to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert.
Title: Kanta Devi & Ors. v Parsaram & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 400
The Rajasthan High Court held that when the process server's report reflected a locked house or an incomplete address, it did not by itself justify adopting the substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC, unless the Court was satisfied that the defendant was deliberately evading service and ordinary service was impracticable.
“The Court must apply its mind to the process server's report and the surrounding circumstances and arrive at an informed conclusion that ordinary service cannot reasonably be effected. Such satisfaction may, depending upon the language and circumstances, be inferred from the order itself and need not invariably be expressed in any particular formula. But the record must nevertheless disclose the existence of the judicial satisfaction which the statute requires.”
While setting aside an ex-party decree in a suit of specific performance, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the power to direct the exceptional mode of substituted service under Order V Rule 20, CPC, was not absolute.
Title: Jairam v Sub-Division Magistrate and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 401
The Rajasthan High Court ordered disposal of a 63-year-old revenue case in 3 months without any adjournments, holding that in case of failure by the Presiding Officer of revenue court directions will be issued to higher authorities to take appropriate action against the officer including adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report.
While recording “harsh reality of the system prevailing in Revenue Courts Administration System”, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the sole reason for such long pendency was the practice of seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Court held that this situation and work culture had to be changed to move away from unnecessary adjournments.
Title: Bihari Lal v Navratanmal Bamb & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 402
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a handwriting expert's report cannot be introduced at the evidence stage to support a forgery plea that was never raised in the written statement, observing that evidence cannot be used to introduce a new factual foundation or defence beyond the pleadings.
A bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that pleadings constitute the foundation of evidence and the opposite party is entitled to know the precise case it is required to meet. Allowing a new factual plea to be introduced for the first time through evidence would cause prejudice to the opposite party.
“The distinction between elaboration of a pleaded case and introduction of a wholly new case cannot be overlooked. Evidence is intended to substantiate the pleadings; it cannot be employed as a device to supply the very foundation which the pleadings themselves do not contain.”
Absence Due To Prolonged Illness Not Wilful Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Termination
Title: Heera Mani v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 403
While setting aside termination order of a deceased-employee, the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur at the Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the absence of an employee owing to a prolonged illness did not amount to wilful absence that could attract imposition of penalty.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Krushnakat B. Parmar v. Union of India in which it was held that,
“…for sustaining allegations of failure to maintain devotion to duty due to absence and conduct unbecoming of government servant and dismissal based thereupon it must be proved that unauthorized absence was willful. If absence is due to compelling circumstances under which it is not possible to report for or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be willful and employee guilty of misconduct”
Title: Deepak Meena v the Chairman cum Managing Director, JVVNL & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 404
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order imposing penalty on the Zonal Chief Engineer of Jaipur Discom, as well as the appellate order affirming such penalty, since no consideration was given to the contents of the reply in defence that was submitted by him.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma affirmed that merely using the words that the content was considered in the order, was an empty formality and an eye wash. Consideration meant active application of mind as well as thinking over, pondering and weighing the relevant material.
Title: E v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 405
The Rajasthan High Court has held that passport authorities cannot insist a minor, who is in exclusive custody of divorced mother, to produce an undertaking of estranged father's name for renewal of passport, especially when no such document was sought at the time of issuing the passport.
The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma perused all the relevant statutory documents, to conclude that a single mother could apply for a minor's passport on which no name of the father had to be printed, where he had terminated the relationship with the mother.
“The respondents cannot now, at the stage of renewal, arbitrarily reverse this position and insist upon an undertaking, or inclusion of the father's name, by mechanically invoking the clarificatory notification dated 28.02.2023. Such rigid insistence not only disregards the statutory declaration made by the petitioner's mother in Annexure 'C', but also runs contrary to the flexible, fact-specific approach mandated by the Passport Rules and recognised by various High Courts.”
Absence Of Single Voter Can't Stall Election Or Warrant Re-Poll: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Vinita Pooniya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 406
The Rajasthan High Court has held that absence of a single voter at the time of polling could not be treated as an adverse situation warranting postponement of the elections schedule fixed by the State Election Commission and hence could not be a ground for re-polling.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that if such a situation was allowed to trigger re-polling or postponement of election schedule, there would be no end to election and every election would be liable to be postponed on the ground that one or other voter could not vote.
“The concept of re-poll is provided under the Rules of 1994 only when the polling is vitiated by booth capturing, large scale rigging, failure of EVM, riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or natural calamity which affects the free and fair polling. Isolated absence of a single voter does not fall under any of these categories. A voter cannot claim his right to vote after expiry of time fixed for polling.”
The Court further held that if the absentee felt aggrieved and believed that she was deprived of her right to cast vote, she had the liberty to file an election petition.
“As per the mandate contained under Rules 52 and 53 of the Rules of 1994, the polling process can be adjourned only in extreme circumstances where the polling is obstructed or interrupted by riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or natural calamity. The instant case does not fall under any of the above circumstances as described under Rules 52 and 53 of the Rules of 1994.”
Title: Vedprakash v Chittorgarh Central Coop. Bank Ltd. & Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 407
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the stages of examination, cross-examination, defence evidence or hearing of arguments, as under Rule 16(6)(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (the “Rules”) cannot be avoided merely because the disciplinary authorities considered that documentary or electronic material was sufficient.
The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur was hearing an appeal against the order of the MD of Chittorgarh Central Cooperative Bank, by which the petitioner was dismissed from service.
The Court rejected the respondents' argument to the effect that considering the nature of banking transactions, examination of witnesses was not necessary. It was held that such contention could not be accepted to substitute the compliance with procedure, required under Rule 16.
“The Rule does not leave it to the disciplinary authorities to dispense with the stages of examination, cross-examination, defence evidence or hearing of arguments merely because the department considers the documentary or electronic material sufficient. Where the charges are denied, the procedure prescribed by the Rule is required to be followed.”
