NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 320 - 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 334]

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

Bhuri v State of Rajasthan

Suo Motu- In Re- Structural integrity, safety and imminent peril to human lives arising from the Central Dome and allied defects in the Building of the Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat, Jodhpur.

Avinash Singh v Union of India & Ors.

Order/Judgments of the Week

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

Title: State of Rajasthan v Bhagwan Singh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 320

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 321

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

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

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

Title: Anupama Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 322

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

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

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

Title: Lekhraj v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 323

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

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

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

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

Title: Rani Devi v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 324

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 325

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 326

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 327

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 328

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 329

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 330

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 331

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 332

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 333

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 334

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

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

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

Other Developments

Rajasthan High Court Flags 'Menace' Of Fake Birth Certificates In Habeas Corpus Cases, Orders Steps To Prevent Illegal Issuance

Title: Bhuri v State of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court has flagged the growing "menace" of forged and illegally issued birth certificates being produced in habeas corpus petitions to portray missing minor girls as majors, directing the State Government to ensure that such certificates are not issued without due verification of facts and in violation of statutory provisions.

The division bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, to issue necessary instructions to the authorities concerned not to issue birth certificates dehors the statutory provisions or in a casual manner without due verification. The Court also directed that appropriate disciplinary proceedings be initiated against erring officials.

Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Notice Of Structural Defects In Own Building After IIT Bombay Warns Central Dome May Collapse Any Time

Title: Suo Motu- In Re- Structural integrity, safety and imminent peril to human lives arising from the Central Dome and allied defects in the Building of the Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat, Jodhpur.

The Rajasthan High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the serious structural defects in its Principal Seat building at Jodhpur, including the Central Dome, after an ongoing structural audit by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay indicated that the Dome is at risk of imminent collapse.

A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar noted that, according to the expert opinion of IIT Bombay, the Central Dome, situated at a height of approximately 21 metres, is in a state of imminent collapse and “may fall at any moment”, exposing persons within the premises to grave and irreversible danger.

The Court accordingly registered the matter as a suo motu PIL and directed several immediate safety measures, including preparation and circulation of a detailed safety and evacuation protocol to all stakeholders within 48 hours, followed by mock drills within 72 hours.

Rajasthan High Court Restrains Railways' Construction In Front Of Private Plot

Title: Avinash Singh v Union of India & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court has restrained the Railways from carrying out any further construction in front of a private plot in Jaipur, after the petitioner alleged that a proposed boundary wall could block his access to a 200-feet-wide road shown in his registered lease deed and site plan.

Justice Anand Sharma passed the order in a writ petition filed by Avinash Agarwal, who claims to be the owner and occupant of the said plot.

It was submitted that, without following due process of law, the Railways had started raising a boundary wall in front of the plot, which could close the petitioner's access to the road shown in the site plan.