Rajasthan High Court Judgments & Legal News

Rajasthan High Court

Intermediaries Must Not be Mute Spectators to Online Illegality: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that social media intermediaries cannot remain "mute spectators" when online illegality is reported.

Court emphasized that platforms have a positive, continuing obligation under the IT Act and Intermediary Guidelines to act expeditiously once unlawful content is brought to their notice.

The Court clarified that "safe harbour" protection under Section 79 is conditional upon exercising due diligence and removing offending material promptly.

Highlighting the "enduring digital scar" left by the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, the Court directed authorities to coordinate with Meta Platforms for the permanent removal of the content and the suspension of responsible accounts.

[Mohan Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]

Read Details / 3 days ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Rajasthan High Court Deletes Earlier Remarks on Transgender Bill, Issues Clarificatory Order

The Rajasthan High Court issued a clarificatory order deleting certain earlier remarks made on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, and replacing them with fresh observations.

The Court clarified that its main judgment must be complied with in accordance with the legal position existing at the time of the ruling.

The case arose from a plea challenging a 2023 Rajasthan notification classifying transgender persons as OBC.

While earlier observations had criticised the amendment’s impact on self-identity rights, the revised order limits such remarks and stresses that any policy framework must remain within the contours of prevailing law.

Read Details / 7 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Arbitrary Removal of Assistant Advocates by JDA

The Rajasthan High Court recently set aside the Jaipur Development Authority’s (JDA) decision to terminate several Assistant Advocates, ruling that lawyers cannot be treated like servants.

The Court observed that while the State has the authority to engage counsel of its choice, such engagements cannot be cancelled at the "whims" of authorities without following due procedure or providing valid reasons.

Since the petitioners' work was certified as satisfactory, their removal was deemed arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Court directed the JDA to reinstate the advocates and frame a comprehensive policy governing their tenure and eligibility.

[Pratap Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority]

Read Details / 9 days ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Self-Identification is a Right, Not a Concession: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court recently criticized the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, warning it risks turning gender identity into a "State-mediated entitlement."

The Bench observed that requiring administrative certification undermines the NALSA judgment's principle of self-identification.

The Court noted that while Indian mythology venerates gender diversity, contemporary reality remains one of profound marginalization. Terming the State's current OBC notification for transgender persons an "eyewash" that potentially extinguishes pre-existing SC/ST benefits.

Consequently, the Court ordered a 3% additional weightage in marks for transgender candidates in state employment and education until a formal reservation policy is formulated.

[Ganga Kumari v. State of Rajasthan]

Read Order / 10 days ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Rajasthan High Court Convicts Cop for Contempt Over Invalid WhatsApp Service Under Section 41A CrPC

Rajasthan High Court recently convicted a police officer for criminal contempt for repeatedly filing an FIR and summons based on an invalid WhatsApp service under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

The court noted that serving notices or summons incorrectly, particularly via WhatsApp without legal validity, violates proper procedure.

It emphasized that law enforcement officers are required to follow correct legal protocols when issuing notices or summons.

The conviction was ordered under contempt proceedings to enforce compliance with lawful procedure and procedural safeguards.

[Ravi Meena v. Pushpendra Singh Rathod & Ors.]

Read Order / 10 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Authority Cannot Use Its Own Delay to Reject Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court held that an authority cannot reject a compassionate appointment by citing delay when the delay was caused by its own inaction.

The case involved a candidate whose application was initially made on time after his father’s death, but the bank failed to decide for years.

Later, when he reapplied after completing his education, his request was rejected as delayed.

The Court found this approach unfair, noting that no decision was taken on the earlier application. It set aside the rejection and directed reconsideration, holding that institutional delay cannot be used against the applicant.

[Vibhorgolash v. UOI & Ors.]

Read Order / 13 days ago

S PavithraBookmark

Rajasthan High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction Over City Cleanliness; Suggests Fines for Improper Disposal

The Rajasthan High Court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Jaipur City Municipal Corporation’s failure to maintain city cleanliness, suggesting that fines be imposed on citizens who fail to ensure proper garbage disposal in their areas.

A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Shubha Mehta was hearing a petition alleging that despite recruiting 8,000 sanitation workers, very few are performing ground-level cleaning.

The Court directed the Corporation to provide ward-wise details of workers actually engaged in cleaning versus those assigned to office duties.

The Court further ordered the installation of large dumping boxes with a strict daily cleaning schedule.

[Vimal Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan]

Read Order / 29 days ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Rajasthan High Court: Same Recruitment Batch Can’t Get Different Pay Fixation Based on Joining Date

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that employees selected through the same recruitment process cannot be subjected to different pay fixations or increments based solely on their joining dates.

The Court held that granting an additional annual increment to those who joined before a specific date, while denying it to others in the same batch, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court emphasized that authorities must adopt a uniform date, to ensure parity within the same cadre.

Further striking down a Finance Department circular used to justify this disparity, directing the State to rationalize and correct the pay anomaly within one month.

[Shrutika Chauhan & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.]

Read Order / a month ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Rajasthan High Court: Misleading Social Media Posts Violating Privacy Breach Article 21

The Rajasthan High Court held that misleading or false social media posts that harm a person’s reputation or invade their privacy violate the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court ordered the removal of a misleading Facebook post that falsely declared a minor girl missing and offered a reward for information. The post led to strangers visiting the child’s residence, causing fear and disturbance.

The Court observed that such malicious online content infringes dignity and privacy, and directed the platform to take down the post and photographs of the minor.

[Aaradhya Verma (Minor) through Natural Guardian Nilima Verma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.]

Read Details / a month ago

S PavithraBookmark

Son’s Right to Compassionate Appointment Not Defeated by Parents' Divorce or Second Wife’s Job

The Rajasthan High Court held that a son's right to compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely because his parents were divorced or because his father's second wife was already employed.

The Bench rejected the State's argument that the son was not "dependent" as he lived with his mother post-divorce.

The Court clarified that divorce does not negate the legal status of a son under the 1996 Rules.

The Court further noted that the second wife's appointment under the widow quota was an independent recruitment and could not divest the son of his specific rights under compassionate grounds.

[State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ashish Saxena & Ors.]

Read Order / a month ago

AnvishaaBookmark

Penalty for Delay in Compensation Must be Paid by Employer, Not Insurance Company: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that an employer must personally pay the penalty for delaying compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, even if the compensation amount is covered by insurance.

The Court clarified that the penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) arises from the employer’s own default and cannot be shifted to the insurance company.

The case arose after an employee died in a work-related accident and compensation was not paid within the statutory period.

While the insurer may pay compensation and interest, the Court held that the penalty must be borne by the employer to ensure timely payment and maintain the deterrent purpose of the law.

Read Details / a month ago

S PavithraBookmark

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 / a month 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 / a month 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 / a month 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 / a month ago

Thanush SBookmark