Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 13 to April 19, 2026

NOMINAL INDEXDeepa Ram Meghwal v/s State of Rajasthan & Others and Batch; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 131Prashant Kaushik & ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 133S d/o A v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 134Hema v Mohit Bhardwaj; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 135Jhalkan Singh Rathore & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 136Bhupendra Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 137Narayan Bairwa & Ors. v District Manager, Food Corporation of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 138Krishan Gopal Kumawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 139Smt. Pushpa & Anr. v Hemraj & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 140Arvind Kumar v Smt. Namita; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 142Istikhar Khan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 143Shyam Lal v Senior Chemist, Public Health and Engineering Department & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 144Federation Of Private Medical And Dental College Of Rajasthan v Chairman, Neet PG & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 145Vijay Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 146Anil Kumar Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 147Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat v Shri Banshi Lal; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 148Chimna Ram v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 150Narayan Lal Rebari & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 151Order/Judgments of the WeekRajasthan High Court Asks State To Frame Policy Curbing Khap Panchayat 'Diktats', Says Social Boycott Violates Citizens' Fundamental RightsTitle: Deepa Ram Meghwal v/s State of Rajasthan & Others and BatchCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 131The Rajasthan High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State Government including formulation of a policy and Standard Operating Procedure to ensure comprehensive adjudication of complaints by citizens against "diktats" and "social boycott orders" issued by Khap Panchayats.In doing so the court highlighted that Khaps "have been a deeply concerning practice appears to be prevalent in certain rural settings" wherein a group of influential persons who have no lawful authority, assume themselves to be an extra-legal governing body. These bodies, acting in the guise of a “panchayat” or association, issue diktats to the villagers at large, mandating a complete social and economic boycott of a particular individual or family."Any extra-constitutional authority or informal body assuming the power to impose such sanctions is wholly impermissible in the eyes of law. The absence of a dedicated legislation in the State of Rajasthan has resulted in a regulatory vacuum, leading to ineffective prevention, inadequate prosecution, and continued perpetration of social boycott practices. The situation, thus, warrants serious consideration at the legislative and executive level, so that an appropriate legal framework may be put in place to effectively address and eradicate this pernicious practice," the court said.The court directed that the State Government shall endeavour to finalize the policy and SOP within a reasonable period of time. Once formulated, the policy and SOP shall be circulated widely to all concerned authorities and shall be given due publicity, so as to ensure awareness, effective implementation, and strict compliance at all levels.Magistrate Can't Mechanically Order FIR Against Public Servants Without Following S.223 BNSS Safeguards: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: Prashant Kaushik & ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 133The Rajasthan High Court has held that Magistrate cannot under Section 175(3) BNSS mechanically direct registration of FIR against public servants over acts committed in discharge of their official duties, without following the statutory safeguards provided under Section 223(2) BNSS.In doing so the court underscored that Section 223(2) is a substantive safeguard so that criminal law is not used as a tool of vendetta.Setting aside the Special Court's directions to register FIR against petitioner-police officials, Justice Farjand Ali held that the object of Section 223(2) BNSS was to balance the right of a complainant to seek redressal and the necessity to shield public servants from undue harassment.'Shocking': Rajasthan High Court Slams Rejection Of Minor Rape Survivor's Compensation Claim On Technical GroundsTitle: S d/o A v State of Rajasthan & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 134While expressing shock and surprise, Rajasthan High Court set aside an order of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) that rejected a minor rape victim's application for interim compensation, and asking her to get requisite certificate from the SHO/Magistrate.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme 2011 (“Scheme”) was not followed by the respondent in its letter and spirit, and opined that instead of rejecting the application, DLSA should have asked the concerned authority to send the required certificate.The Court then passed a general direction for Rajasthan State...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 13 to April 19, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

Tags