NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 455 - 466]

Virat Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 455

Surendra Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 456

Naveen v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 457

Suman Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 458

Gangaram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 459

Bhanwar Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 460

Ramniwas v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 461

Suo Motu v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 462

Manglesh Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 463

Santosh Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 464

Naresh Prajapat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 465

Asharam alias Ashumal v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 466

State of Rajasthan v Dinesh, and other connected appeals

Order/Judgments of the Week

Officer Who Supervised Recruitment Can't Order Probe Into Its Irregularities: Rajasthan High Court

Title :  Virat Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 455

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a preliminary enquiry into alleged irregularities in the 2013 recruitment process for the post of Junior Assistant, holding that an officer who supervised the recruitment could not subsequently order an enquiry into the same process when doing so gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

A single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand reiterated the principle that no one can be a judge in their own cause, observing that the question was not whether actual bias had influenced the decision, but whether the circumstances created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

“The principle of law captured in the legal maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa would certainly apply in the present case because one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence is that no one ought to be a Judge in his/her own cause,” the Court observed.

Pending Corruption Case No Ground To Quash Departmental Charge-Sheet: Rajasthan High Courtv

Title :  Surendra Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 456

The Rajasthan High Court has held that an FIR filed against a delinquent employee, and departmental proceedings are two different processes, that can run concurrently, and there is no legal bar in holding both of these simultaneously.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further opined that generally, a writ petition does not survive against the charge-sheet issued in departmental proceedings, unless it is established that the same was issued by an authority which was not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.

“It is a settled law that charge-sheet cannot be interfered with by the Court lightly or in a routine manner. The delinquent employee instead of seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, at the initial stage must submit his/her reply before the Enquiry Officer /Disciplinary Authority and wait for conclusion of the proceedings.”

Rajasthan High Court Seeks Clerk's Explanation For Failure To Mask Obscene Photos Of Sexual Assault Victim, Asks Bar Council To Frame Guidelines

Title :  Naveen v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 457

While hearing a criminal petition, the Rajasthan High Court took serious note of obscene photographs of the minor victim remaining visible on the paperless module system, despite its earlier order laying down guidelines to protect the identity and privacy of victims in sexual offence cases.

A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the failure to mask the photographs of the prosecutrix/victim amounted to non-compliance with the Court's earlier directions and invaded her privacy.

The Court sought an explanation from the concerned clerk for the failure to mask the photographs and directed the Secretary and Chairman of the Bar Council of Rajasthan to formulate guidelines requiring lawyers practising in the State to exercise caution while filing petitions and applications before courts.

Motherhood, Breastfeeding Falls Under Article 21: Rajasthan High Court Stays Transfer Of New Mother, Urges State To Frame Policy

Title :  Suman Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 458

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to reconsider a far-off transfer of a mother of 2-months old infant, opining that it was the general perception that as far as possible, a woman employee who was having a child below one year should not be disturbed and her case should be considered sympathetically rather than mechanically.

While underscoring the right of motherhood as well as the right of the infant of being breast-fed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that involvement of an infant shifted the legal lens from administrative efficiency to the best interests of the child since the latter became paramount consideration for the Court.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted lack of policy for handling such exigencies involving women employees who had recently delivered or had an infant to take care of, and appealed to the Government to put in place an appropriate transfer policy to take care of this hardship faced by both the mother and the infant.

Rape, POCSO Convicts Not Absolutely Barred From Open-Air Prisons, Must Meet Exceptional Circumstances: Rajasthan High Court Full Bench

 Title :  Gangaram v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 459

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a prisoner who is convicted for rape under IPC or POCSO Act, is not totally ineligible to be transferred to an Open Air Camp, provided some special/exceptional circumstances are established. However, such prisoner does not have an automatic right for such transfer.

The full bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sameer Jain, and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed,

"A prisoner convicted under Section 376 IPC or POCSO Act is not totally ineligible for transfer to an Open Air Camp. However, such a prisoner has no automatic right to admission in Open Air Camp, and the nature and gravity of the offence including the age of the victim and the facts of the case are legitimate considerations for the Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee must make an individualised, reasoned assessment of institutional conduct, reformative potential, risk and readiness for reintegration, and record its reasons for transfer to Open Air Camp."

Rajasthan High Court Stays Conviction Of Man Whose Appeal Is Pending Since 2013, Allows Him To Contest Panchayat Polls

Title :  Bhanwar Singh v State of Rajasthan

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 460

The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the conviction of a man whose appeal against the conviction has been since 2013, allowing him to contest the upcoming Panchayat elections, provided he is otherwise eligible.

A single-judge bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the petitioner should not be denied the opportunity to contest the elections merely because his appeal has remained pending for years and is unlikely to be heard in the near future.

The Court highlighted material discrepancies and “gross conflict” in the testimony of a significant eye-witness and the statement of the victim. Further, the Court stated that one of the prime witnesses was not produced by prosecution. The Court further considered the record of the phone call made by the victim to the main accused, asking him to come and take her away.

Rajasthan High Court Calls CRPF's Dismissal Of Employee For Consuming Alcohol, Misbehaving With Colleagues 'Autocratic'

Title :  Ramniwas v Union of India & Ors.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 461

The Rajasthan High Court has termed the dismissal of a CRPF employee, who was serving as a Dhobi, for consuming alcohol and misbehaving with colleagues as "shockingly disproportionate" to the misconduct and contrary to the provisions of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (CRPF Act).

“There is no charge of committing more heinous offence against the petitioner and when the petitioner is charged for less heinous offence then how can one presume that for less heinous offence a person be penalized in a manner that he has to lose his job. A termination or removal is always treated as major penalty and it can be awarded only when there is a grave misconduct.”

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, while noting that the employee had not been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before his dismissal, observed that being a disciplined force did not mean that an employee could be denied a fair hearing or an opportunity to present his defence during disciplinary proceedings.

Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Notify 'Custodial Death Relief Scheme' Within 3 Months

Title :  Suo Motu v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 462

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State Government to finalise, approve and formally notify the Rajasthan Custodian Death Relief Scheme, 2025, within three months, while issuing a series of directions to improve prison conditions across the State.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain issued the directions while disposing of a batch of PILs concerning the rights, welfare and dignity of prisoners, as well as infrastructure, security and living conditions in Rajasthan's jails.

The Court also constituted a permanent State-Level Monitoring Committee, headed by the District Judge of the respective district, to monitor prison conditions, facilitate the implementation of judicial directions and ensure compliance.

Husband's Conviction For Cheque Dishonour Doesn't Automatically End Proceedings Against Wife Who Acted As Guarantor: Rajasthan High Court

Title :  Manglesh Kanwar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 463

The Rajasthan High Court has held that conviction and sentence already undergone by a husband (principal debtor) in respect of the same underlying transaction in which his wife had also issued a security cheque, as a guarantor, does not furnish a ground to her to seek quashing of proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal further observed that liability of a guarantor, arising from a cheque issued as security, could not be excluded from Section 138, NI Act, merely on the ground that the guarantor's liability was co-extensive with that of the principal debtor under the general law of contract.

Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Stay Restriction On SC Migrants Claiming Reservation In Panchayat Elections

Title :  Santosh Devi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 464

The Rajasthan High Court has refused interim relief to a woman who migrated from Haryana to Rajasthan, declining to stay a restriction that bars her from claiming reservation benefits in Panchayat elections on the basis of her caste certificate.

The division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Anuroop Singhi rejected the stay application filed by the woman, who sought permission to contest the upcoming Panchayati Raj elections under the Scheduled Caste category.

The Court took note of the cases relied upon by the State, and observed,

“…has categorically taken a view declining the benefit of reservation to the migrated person, based on the caste certificate, in the Panchayat Election so much so, has also directed to put a rider/note on the Caste Certificate, that the migrated person shall not be entitled to claim benefit of reservation in public employment and elections including Panchayat Election. It may be true that the issue may be sub judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, the judgment of Division Bench in case of Rekha Kumari (supra) has not yet been stayed or set aside, hence, we are not convinced to take a contrary view.”

Number Of Criminal Cases Alone Can't Justify Continued Police Surveillance: Rajasthan High Court

Title :  Naresh Prajapat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 465

The Rajasthan High Court has held that the mere number of criminal cases registered against a person cannot by itself justify continued police surveillance. It thus directed the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, to reconsider the continuance of a history-sheet opened against a man who had 12 cases registered against him but had suffered only one conviction, nearly 30 years ago.

The bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal clarified that while conviction is not a prerequisite for opening a history-sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules 1965 (the “Rules”), competent authority needs to have reasonable grounds for believing that the person fell within the relevant category prescribed within the Rules

“The numerical threshold cannot be read in isolation from the applicable Rules of 1965 or as eliminating the need for a lawful exercise of discretion. The decision thus underscores the importance of examining not merely the existence of criminal cases, but also their number, recency and the surrounding circumstances. It does not, however, support the proposition that acquittal, compromise or the absence of conviction invariably bars the opening or continuance of a history sheet in every case.”

Rajasthan High Court Closes Asaram's Plea After State Complies With 20-Day Parole Order

Title :  Asharam alias Ashumal v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 466

The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a contempt petition filed against the State for non-compliance with the Court order granting 20 days' parole to Asaram.

Noting that the State substantially complied with the order, the Division Bench of Justice Nupur Bhati and Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed:

"This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the compliance report along with the Office Order dated 28.10.2026, which establishes that the applicant was, in fact, released on parole on 08.10.2026 for the stipulated period of twenty days in compliance with the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by the Court. The fact that the applicant surrendered on 28.10.2026, instead of 27.10.2026, does not detract from the fact that the benefit of parole for the period directed by this Court has already been extended to him. In these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the directions contained in the order dated 03.08.2026 have been substantially complied with and no further directions are warranted in the present misc. application. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no further adjudication is called for in the present matter. Accordingly, the present miscellaneous application is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous".

Delayed Appeals Against Acquittals: Rajasthan High Court Gives State 5 Weeks To Frame Litigation Policy, Warns Chief Secretary

Title :  State of Rajasthan v Dinesh, and other connected appeals

The Rajasthan High Court has granted final opportunity of 5 weeks to the State government to come up with a new litigation policy to provide for an effective and efficient mechanism to curb the tendency of filing appeals with delay.

The division bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal and Justice Bhuwan Goyal directed the presence the Chief Secretary, the Principal Law Secretary, and the Finance Secretary, on the next date, in the event the above-mentioned timeline was not complied with.