Rajasthan High Court Judgments & Legal News

Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Husband’s Habeas Corpus Petition as Abuse of Process, Imposes ₹50,000 Fine

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a husband’s habeas corpus petition alleging his wife kept a baby in illegal detention, calling it not maintainable and an abuse of legal process.

The Court observed that the complaint was already pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and that the petitioner failed to justify invoking its writ jurisdiction belatedly.

It held that no case of illegal detention was made out since the child was with the mother and biological father, and the petitioner was not the biological father.

The court imposed a ₹50,000 fine to be deposited with the Mukhyamantri Vidyadaan Kosh.

Read Details / 3 hours ago

MahiraBookmark

Rajasthan High Court Pulls Up ACB DIG over Inaction in IT Department Scam Complaints

The Rajasthan High Court directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) DIG to take concrete steps within two weeks on complaints alleging large-scale irregularities in the State’s IT and Communication Department.

The Court observed that continued inaction creates an impression of shielding the accused and warned that failure to act could invite proceedings against the officer.

It noted that despite earlier directions to conduct an inquiry into tender-related matters, no meaningful investigation had been initiated.

The Court asked the ACB to place on record the steps taken by the next date of hearing.

Read Details / 2 days ago

MahiraBookmark

Rajasthan High Court Calls for Timely Framework on Service & Education Approval Matters

The Rajasthan High Court directed the State authorities to put in place a time-bound mechanism for deciding service and education approval matters.

The Court observed that prolonged administrative delays in granting approvals or regularising service records cause serious prejudice to employees and institutions.

It held that authorities must act within a reasonable time and cannot keep applications pending indefinitely.

The Court asked the concerned departments to ensure expeditious consideration of such cases in accordance with law to prevent unnecessary litigation and hardship.

Read Details / 2 days ago

MahiraBookmark

Eight Judicial Officers Placed Under APO After Surprise Inspection in Rajasthan

The Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court has placed eight judicial officers under “Awaiting Posting Orders” (APO) with immediate effect for administrative reasons.

The inspection was conducted after a bomb threat email led to the temporary disruption of court proceedings earlier in the day.

During the surprise inspection of district and subordinate courts, several courtrooms were found vacant, and some judicial officers were absent from their designated seats during court hours. Following the inspection, the Registrar General issued formal APO orders.

The officers have been directed to report to the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, or the District and Sessions Judge headquarters at Jodhpur until further posting orders.

Read Details / 8 days ago

Thanush SBookmark

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Actress Prathyusha Death Case, Upholds Abetment Conviction

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed appeals in the 23-year-old death case of Telugu/Tamil actress Prathyusha, ruling out allegations of murder and rape.

A Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan held that consistent eyewitness accounts and medical evidence established death by poisoning. The Court noted that Prathyusha and her boyfriend, Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy, had consumed poison amid opposition to their relationship, though Reddy survived.

Rejecting the defence of accidental intake, the Court found Reddy guilty of abetment to suicide for procuring the poison and directed him to surrender within four weeks.

It also termed the postmortem conducted by Dr. Muni Swamy unprofessional.

[Gudipalli Siddharta Reddy v. State (C.B.I.)]

Read Details / 9 days ago

VishwaBookmark

Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Dissolve 58-Year Marriage, Says Normal Wear and Tear Not Cruelty

The Rajasthan High Court refused to dissolve a 58-year marriage, holding that “trivial irritations, quarrels and normal wear and tear of married life” do not constitute cruelty sufficient for divorce.

The Division Bench upheld a 2019 family court order dismissing the husband’s petition. The couple married in 1967 and lived together until 2013, with three adult children.

The husband had filed for divorce in 2014 after the wife lodged an FIR against him and alleged property disputes.

The Court noted long-standing matrimonial life with minor disputes does not justify breaking the marriage and dismissed the appeal.

Read Details / 10 days ago

MahiraBookmark

BDS Not Equivalent to ‘Degree in Medicine’ for Food Safety Officer Post: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging rejection of a BDS graduate’s candidature for the post of Food Safety Officer.

The recruitment notification issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission prescribed a “Degree in Medicine” as the essential qualification. The petitioner argued that dental surgery falls within the definition of medicine under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

However, the Court noted that an expert committee had already concluded that BDS is not equivalent to a medical degree. Justice Anand Sharma held that courts cannot expand eligibility criteria under Article 226, as determining equivalence lies within the State’s domain.

The petition was accordingly dismissed.

[Arvind Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.]

Read Details / 12 days ago

MananBookmark

Right to Dignity Does Not End With Arrest, Rajasthan HC Orders Police to Remove Photos of Arrestees

The Rajasthan High Court pulled up the Jaisalmer police for publicly shaming arrested persons by photographing them in degrading conditions and circulating the images on social media and in newspapers.

The Court held that an arrest does not strip an individual of the right to dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

It ordered the immediate removal of such photographs within 24 hours and sought responses from senior police officials on safeguards to prevent recurrence.

The Court observed that publicly portraying accused persons as criminals before trial violates the presumption of innocence and causes irreversible harm to reputation.

[Islam Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]

Read Details / a month ago

MahiraBookmark

Disciplinary Orders Must Reflect Real Consideration of Employee’s Defence: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court held that merely stating that an employee’s defence was “considered” in disciplinary or appellate orders does not amount to valid consideration in law.

The Court emphasised that authorities must show real and reasoned application of mind to the defence raised, and such reasoning must be evident from the order itself.

It observed that recording reasons is essential, especially where penalties affect future promotions and service prospects. Reliance on internal note-sheets was rejected, as prejudicial reasons must form part of the final order.

The Court set aside the disciplinary and appellate orders for non-application of mind.

[Rajesh Kumar Tiwari v. the Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.]

Read Judgment / a month ago

MananBookmark

CLAT Coaching Rivalry: Rajasthan High Court Stays Investigation, Refers Matter to Mediation

The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the investigation arising from a complaint linked to a dispute between two CLAT coaching institutes over claims of association with a top-ranked student.

The proceedings stemmed from allegations that a rival institute approached the ranker and their parent with an offer for endorsement, followed by accusations of intimidation and reputational threats.

The Court observed that the dispute appeared to be rooted in business rivalry rather than criminal conduct, particularly as it involved a minor student.

Holding that the issue was better suited for amicable resolution, the Court referred the parties to mediation and stayed further investigation.

Read Order / a month ago

Thanush SBookmark

State Cannot Keep Workers in Perpetual Temporariness: Rajasthan High Court Orders Regularisation

The Rajasthan High Court held that the State cannot exploit workers by keeping them in a state of “perpetual temporality” while extracting continuous and regular work.

The Court observed that although regularisation cannot be claimed as a matter of right, constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16 do not permit arbitrary and unfair labour practices.

It was held that denial of regularisation solely on the ground that the employee was not appointed against a sanctioned post is unsustainable, where the employee has rendered long, uninterrupted service and performed duties identical to regular employees.

Accordingly, the Court directed regularisation of the petitioner.

[Satu Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors]

Read Order / a month ago

MananBookmark

Outstanding Sportsperson Quota Claims must Be Examined as Per Policy: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court directed the State to reconsider claims of Nursing Officer candidates seeking benefit under the Outstanding Sportsperson quota.

The Court held that such claims must be examined strictly as per the State policy issued under the Department of Personnel circular dated May 27, 2022.

It prescribed a five-step scrutiny process, including verification of the definition of “outstanding sportsperson,” level of the event, recognition of the organising body, performance and participation, and domicile or category documents.

The Court observed that recruitment authorities must assess sports certificates systematically before rejecting claims, and disposed of the petitions with directions for fresh examination.

[Sumitra Runla v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]

Read Order / a month ago

MahiraBookmark

Long Trial Stays in Heinous Crimes Mock Justice: Supreme Court Asks HCs to Prioritise Pending Petitions

Supreme Court directed High Courts to prioritise disposal of petitions that keep trials in heinous offences pending for years, stating that long trial stays through interim orders mock justice.

The matter arose when a criminal revision in the Rajasthan High Court remained pending for 22+ years, keeping a murder trial stayed despite an FIR registered in 2002 alleging dowry harassment and murder, and charges framed the same year.

The Supreme Court sought data on criminal revisions filed and decided between 2001 and 2026, inquired about the frequency of listing, and ordered an urgent hearing on January 15, 2026.

Its order has been circulated to all High Court registries.

[Vijay kumar & Ors. v. the State of Rajasthan]

Read Details / a month ago

Thanush SBookmark

Bail is Rule for Juveniles Even if Tried as Adults: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court held that bail is the norm for juveniles under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, even when they are tried as adults for heinous offences.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand clarified that the gravity of the offence or the age of the child cannot be grounds to deny bail.

Bail may be refused only if release exposes the child to danger, associates them with criminals, or defeats rehabilitative justice under the Act.

[Us@us v. State of Rajasthan]

Read Order / a month ago

MananBookmark

Rajasthan High Court Bar Boycotts Court Over Mandatory Working Saturdays

The Rajasthan High Court Bar in Jodhpur staged a coordinated protest, abstaining from court work after the High Court designated the second Saturday of each month as a working day for 2026.

A resolution was passed jointly on January 3, opposing the Saturday schedule and the operation of night courts in the district.

Following the boycott across the High Court and subordinate courts, bar delegations planned discussions with Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma in Jaipur to decide next steps today.

Earlier representations by bar bodies had termed the decision arbitrary and issued without consultation, stressing advocates are not a “bonded labour force” and cannot be treated as “bonded labour force.”

Read Details / a month ago

Thanush SBookmark

Enroll Now!