NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 357 - 365]

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

Suo Motu v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions

Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan, Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University v Union of India, and other connected matters

Kavita Bhati v the Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti

Order/Judgments of the Week

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.”

S.311 CrPC | Court Can Recall Material Witnesses Even After Closing Evidence, Bar On Review Doesn't Apply During Trial: Rajasthan High Court

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.”

NDPS Act | Police Can't 'Blindly' Use Statutory Presumption To Prosecute Vehicle Owner Without Proof Of 'Knowledge': Rajasthan High Court

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.”

Alleged Illegal Detention, Assault Beyond Official Duty; No Sanction Needed To Prosecute Police Constable: Rajasthan High Court

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.”

Confiscation Of Vehicle Used For Illegal Mining Operates Independently Irrespective Of Pending Criminal Prosecution: Rajasthan High Court

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"

Interim Stay Can Be Granted In Time-Barred Appeal Without Condoning Delay Only In 'Exceptional Cases': Rajasthan High Court

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.”

Reasons Recorded In Order Directing Further Investigation Can't Itself Be Construed As Direction For Point-Wise Probe: Rajasthan High Court

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.

Repeated Notices To Pay Dues Not Enough To Blacklist Contractor Without Warning: Rajasthan High Court Quashes 3-Year Debarment

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.”

Night-Time NDPS Search Without Warrant Valid Where Urgent Action Justifies Delayed Section 42 Compliance: Rajasthan High Court

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.”

Journalists Are 'Eyes & Ears Of Public', Can Inform Collector About Encroachments: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Suo Motu v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions

In furtherance of hearing the batch of petitions concerning the protection of rivers, lakes and water bodies, Rajasthan High Court observed that media and journalists are also eyes and ears of public, and had a role to play to ensure that there were no encroachments. Hence, whenever they found such encroachments, they can inform the Collector, Jaipur.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma took note of the affidavit filed by the District Collector, detailing the list of encroachments in the catchment area of the rivers and small drains that fell in the flow of water towards the Ramgarh Dam.

It was observed that there were huge number of encroachments, particularly in 5 tehsils, namely, Andhi, Jamwa Ramgarh, Amer, Shahpura, and Viratnagar, that had to be removed. The Court stated that these persons were ranked trespassers on the government land.

Rajasthan High Court Warns UGC Of Contempt For Failure To Implement Fresh Exam Directions For Students With Suspended Degrees

Title: Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan, Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University v Union of India, and other connected matters

The Rajasthan High Court has issued contempt warning to UGC officials in case of their failure to comply with the directions to conduct fresh examination for students whose diplomas/ degrees/ qualifications, obtained from various distance education centres of deemed universities were nullified by an order of the Court dated January 1, 2024.

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar was hearing a bunch of special appeals, in which the appellant was undergoing the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor and was apprehending disqualification from participation in the counselling process on account of issue relating to her degree in question.

Rajasthan High Court Stays CAT Order Holding Advocate's Plea For Interim Relief As Misconduct, Imposing ₹7,000 Cost

Title: Kavita Bhati v the Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti

The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the operation of an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur, which recorded a finding of “misconduct” against an advocate for seeking interim relief on behalf of her client and imposed costs of ₹7,000.

The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja passed the order while hearing a petition filed by the advocate against the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.

It was submitted that the advocate who was 20 years into the profession, was representing her client, before the Tribunal, who was working as an electrician-cum-plumber with the respondent and had challenged his transfer order.

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Strike Against Acting Chief Justice SP Sharma

The Advocates practising before the Jodhpur and Jaipur benches of the Rajasthan High Court launched a strike against the Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, alleging misuse of powers.

A video was circulated on social media showing the advocates sitting in the corridors of the High Court and chanting slogans.

The protest followed recent letters sent by Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant accusing ACJ Sharma of misusing his administrative powers and manipulating case listings. He also urged the CJI to appoint a Chief Justice from another High Court.

Rajasthan High Court Lawyers To Abstain From Work Till Sept 6, Demand Acting CJ Be Relieved Of Judicial, Administrative Duties

The Rajasthan High Court Lawyers' Association, Jodhpur and Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association, Jodhpur announced that lawyers will abstain from work till September 6, 2026, while demanding that Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma be relieved of his judicial and administrative responsibilities.

The decision was taken at an emergency meeting of lawyers on August 31 amid concerns raised in letters written by Supreme Court Judge Justice Sandeep Mehta to Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant regarding the functioning of the Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice.

The Associations clarified that the move is not directed against any particular individual, but is aimed at protecting the dignity, impartiality and independence of the judicial institution and maintaining public confidence in the justice delivery system.

As per the press note released by the Associations, the bar raised 3 demands.

Rajasthan High Court Advocate Clerks Association Joins Strike, Will Abstain From Work At Jodhpur Bench

Following the decision of the Rajasthan High Court bar to abstain from work till September 6, the Rajasthan High Court Advocate Clerks Association, Jodhpur has also announced its decision to abstain from work at the Jodhpur Bench.

The notice dated August 31 mentions that in support of the press release note by the Associations, no member of the Rajasthan High Court Advocate Clerks Association, Jodhpur, shall participate in any judicial work, nor shall assist in any judicial proceedings.

Amid Lawyers' Protest, Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice SP Sharma Goes On Leave

Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma went on leave for three days amid protests by members of the Bar against his continuation as Acting Chief Justice.

The development came against the backdrop of protests by lawyers, who have been demanding that Justice Sharma be relieved of the charge of Acting Chief Justice and that a permanent Chief Justice be appointed to the Rajasthan High Court.

After Supreme Court Judge's Complaint Against Rajasthan HC Acting CJ, SC Collegium Recommends Permanent CJ Appointment

The Supreme Court Collegium passed a notification on August 31, 2026, recommending the appointment of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal as Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.

Justice Agarwal was a judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

The decision was made amid controversy over "misuse of powers" by Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.

Rajasthan HC Acting CJ SP Sharma Denies Justice Sandeep Mehta's Allegations, Says They're Made Out Of Resentment

Rajasthan High Court Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has broken his silence over the controversy surrounding allegations of manipulation of case listings and misuse of administrative powers, denying the charges and describing them as baseless.

The allegations were raised by Supreme Court Justice Sandeep Mehta in communications addressed to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Justice Mehta had sought the replacement of Justice Sharma as Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court and urged that a Chief Justice from another State be appointed to the Rajasthan High Court.

Justice Sharma categorically rejected the allegations. He said the charges were without basis and claimed that they had been made against him by the concerned judge out of resentment.