Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: June 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 195 To 2024 194 LiveLaw (Raj) 221

NOMINAL INDEX

The State of Rajasthan, through District Collector Pali. & Ors. vs. Sanwariya Infrastructure Private Limited 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 195

Komal Kumawat & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitons 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 196

Arpit Naraniwal v State and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 197

Mahipal Singh v Kundal Mal 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 198

Anup Agrawal v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 199

Ajaypal Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 200

Gyanchand Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201

Shrilal v Smt. Bhagwati Devi 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 202

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Anr. v Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg, and other connected petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 203

Mohammad Anwar v the Chairman, Rajashtan NEET Ayush, and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 204

Shekharchand Sacheti & Anr. v S.M.F.G. India Home Finance Company Limited & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 205

Hdfc Bank Limited v Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 206

Mohammad Abid & Ors. v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 207

Ramswaroop v Moolchand & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 208

Shankar Lal v Jugal Kishore & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 209

State of Rajasthan v Sharafat & Anr, and other connected matter 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 210

Bhawani Pratap Singh v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 211

Hari Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 212

Anindita Biswas v National Law University, Jodhpur & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 213

X v Y 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 214

Banarsi Das Mittal v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 215

Ankit Bansal v Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 216

Mushtaq Ali v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 217

Smt. Kailash Kanwar Rathore & Ors. v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 218

X v The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 219

Mahir Bishnoi v National Testing Agency & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 220

Ashutosh Bajoria v Rajesh Kumar Sharma (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 12/2023) 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 221

Manisha Mina v State of Rajasthan & Others

Umakant Sharma v Om Prakash Sharma

In Re: Grievance of Girls staying at Balika Grah and Care Leavers fighting for their Identity and Rights after leaving Shelter Homes

Orders/Judgments of the Month

Arbitrator Can't Grant Relief Contrary To Terms Of Contract: Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Award Of Compensation For Delay

Title: The State of Rajasthan, through District Collector Pali. & Ors. vs. Sanwariya Infrastructure Private Limited

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 195

The Rajasthan High Court bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal have held that an arbitral award which grants reliefs beyond the express terms of the contract, including compensation for losses and interest where no such entitlement exists under the agreement, is patently illegal and liable to be set aside under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court held that awards passed beyond the terms of the contract come within the teeth of grounds available u/s 37 of the Act for interference. It relied upon State of Rajasthan v. Nav Bharat Construction Co., where the Supreme Court held that “An arbitrator cannot go beyond the terms of the contract between the parties. In the guise of doing justice he cannot award contrary to the terms of the contract”.

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Mandate On Possession Of 'Crafts Instructor Certificate' For Appointment As Junior Trainer

Title: Komal Kumawat & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and other connected petitons

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 196

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed challenging the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Rajasthan Technical Training Subordinate Service Rules mandating possession of relevant National Craft Instructor Certificates (NCIC)/Crafts Instructor Training Scheme (CITS) Certificate for the post of Junior Instructors.

The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Anand Sharma opined that as per the notification issued by the State to amend the Rules, the requirement of possessing NCIC/CITS certificates were only for those traders where the courses under CITS were available. It was not mandatory in all cases, and an exception was carved out for the contingencies where the courses under CITS were not available.

“Merely, for the reason that Schedule sought to be substituted vide Notification dated 01.09.2023 is silent in respect of manner of relaxation to be granted qua possessing NCIC/CITS certificate, even for the trades where CITS courses are not available, would not invalidate the Notification dated 01.09.2023 for the reason that it goes without saying that O.M. dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Central Government would govern the field, where the State Rules are silent.”

Possibility Of Accused Benefitting From Victims' Fear In Going To Police Can't Be Ignored: Rajasthan High Court Declines To Quash Rape FIRs

Title: Arpit Naraniwal v State and batch

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 197

The Rajasthan High Court declined to quash two FIRs–one lodged in February 2024 and the other in March 2024–registered against a man accused of engaging in sexual relations with two women under the false promise of marriage.

In doing so the court said that in the present case, the possibility of the accused taking benefit of the situation or fear instilled in women on reporting of sexual assault cases cannot be ignored.

Justice Kuldeep Mathur, in his order observed that the facts disclosed in the FIRs indicated that complainants were in relationship with the petitioner for a considerable long period of time, but they were not in a "continuous relationship and were intermittent". It noted that the parties re-entered into the relationship again on being assured by the petitioner that he would marry the complainants.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Order Closing Party's Evidence Citing Delay In Witness Testimony, Says 'Justice Hurried Is Buried'

Title: Mahipal Singh v Kundal Mal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 198

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a trial court order which after allowing summoning of a witness had closed a party's evidence when the witness was not produced even after multiple opportunities, observing that "justice hurried is justice buried".

Justice Arun Monga held that without proper evidence, adjudication might result in erroneous findings. Hence, the high court gave one more opportunity after imposing cost of Rs. 5000 on the petitioner.

"It transpires that what weighed on the mind of the learned trial court was that granting of further opportunity to the petitioner would result in delay of the trial proceedings. No doubt, granting of opportunity would have resulted in delay, but the same could have been compensated by imposing cost. While justice delayed is justice denied, at the same time, justice hurried is justice buried. Without proper evidence, being adduced before the learned trial court, the adjudication on the issues involved, may result in erroneous findings".

Rajasthan HC Upholds Admission Criteria For Ultrasound Course Under NEET PG 2024 Reserving Seats For Those From State Colleges, Govt Officials

Title: Anup Agrawal v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 199

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the constitutional validity of a State amendment to an April 22 instruction booklet issued on NEET-PG 2024, concerning the six-month Ultrasound Training Course under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules (the Rules) that introduced a new eligibility criteria for admission.

While upholding the constitutional validity of the addendum brought in by the amendment, Justice Sameer Jain opined that the maxim “salus populi suprema lex esto” (the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law) guided the State in formulating healthcare-related educational policy. The twin criteria of institutional preference and in-service preference served the larger public interest and were grounded in rational and non-arbitrary classification.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Against Farmers Protesting Against Jawai Dam Distribution Issue, Says Water Is A Matter Of Survival For Them

Title: Ajaypal Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 200

Quashing FIRs against over 50 farmers stated to be "peacefully protesting" on Jawai Dam water distribution issue, Rajasthan High Court said that an individual taking to the streets to protest to safeguard their rights when their interest were affected did not imply that they had committed offences alleged under IPC and National Highways Act.

Observing that Section 8B of National Highways Act was not applicable against the petitioners Justice Farjand Ali in his order said:

"In a silent protest, it cannot be presumed that any person has caused harm to public property or to any individual. It is well understood that water is a basic necessity, and for farmers, it is a matter of survival and livelihood. Their wrath and resentment, therefore, is natural. If they come forward to request that the authorities should hold discussions in a setting where they feel comfortable particularly when the outcome directly affects their lives and if they express their dissent against a decision taken by the authorities in a democratic manner, there is nothing unlawful in that. Furthermore, if a group stands in a public place, some degree of obstruction is inevitable, but that alone does not constitute an offence, especially in the absence of violence or damage. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 8B are not fulfilled".

Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Plant Ten Times The Number Of Trees Affected By Road Widening & Beautification Work

Title: Gyanchand Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201

While hearing pleas against demolition drives for road widening allegedly conducted without following procedure, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State to first count number of plants/trees which are to be removed for beautification work and road expansion, and subsequently plant trees ten times of this number in nearby public areas.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that planting trees and plants was an initiative considered appropriate by the Court, as thriving tree, whether for decades or centuries provided continuous and silent benefits to the city and its surrounding community.

Issue Of Non-Joinder In Amendment To Written Statement Holds No Weight Unless Party Is Indispensable Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Rajasthan HC

Title: Shrilal v Smt. Bhagwati Devi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 202

While upholding Trial Court's order of dismissing application to amend the written statement, the bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court held that the plaintiff being the master of the lis could not be compelled to include or exclude particular individuals. Hence, the issue of non-joinder in the amendment did not hold any weight unless the party was indispensable under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC.

“…plaintiff is the master of the lis and it is for him to see as to whom he wants to sue or proceed against and the defendant cannot decide it on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the discretion to choose the parties to be impleaded in a suit. The defendant cannot compel the plaintiff to include or exclude particular individuals.”

'Pay Minus Pension' Can't Be Retrospectively Recovered From Retd Doctors Due To AIIMS Jodhpur's Ignorant Attitude: Rajasthan High Court

Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Anr. v Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 203

In pleas by retired doctors “re-employed” by AIIMS Jodhpur against imposition “Pay minus pension” rule five years after their appointment orders were issued without such condition, the Rajasthan High Court slammed the hospital for being ignorant about the law applicable upon its employees.

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that the statutory provisions governing the field of “re-employed” persons could not be excluded merely because of an omission on part of the employer in clarifying the same in the advertisement notice or appointment order.

Furthermore, the Court perused All India Institute of Medical Sciences Regulations, 1999 (“1999 Regulations”) and opined that Regulation 33 indicated that if a retired person was employed at AIIMS, he/she had to be treated as a re-employed person. Further, the Court opined that once it was determined that the petitioners were re-employed, 1986 Orders clearly required application of the rule “pay minus pension”.

At the same time, the Court opined that the lackadaisical and ignorant attitude of AIIMS had led to this controversy. Hence, it was not fair to seek retrospective recovery of the amount already paid to the doctors, at this belated stage for no fault on theirs.

Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Unani Student Whose Admission Was Cancelled For Not Submitting Open School Marksheet

Title: Mohammad Anwar v the Chairman, Rajashtan NEET Ayush, and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 204

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a student whose provisional admission in Rajashtan Unani Medical College, Jaipur, was cancelled after he could not submit original mark-sheets of clearing Biology from the Rajasthan State Open School. It was ruled that if the candidate had met substantive thresholds, strict compliance with technical formalities undermined the object of the admission scheme.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain held that clauses 23 and 31 of the National Council For Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) had to be interpreted using the principles of “Ejusdem Generis” and “Noscitur a Sociis” to mean that while final approval of admission could not be granted without original documents, it did not mandate outright cancellation of a provisional admission if the failure to comply was due to reasons beyond candidate's control.

Arbitration Act | Notice U/S 21 Not Always Necessary If Other Party Was Aware Of Dispute: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Shekharchand Sacheti & Anr. v S.M.F.G. India Home Finance Company Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 205

Rajasthan High Court ruled that since the respondent was already aware of and was not taken by surprise regarding petitioner's invocation of arbitration clause, their plea that the application for appointment of arbitrator was not maintainable since no notice was served under Section 21 of the A&C Act 1996, lacked merit.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also reiterated the principle laid down in the case of M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Private Limited & others v. Hero Fincorp Limited that the SARFAESI Proceedings were in the nature of enforcement while arbitration was an adjudicatory proceedings. Hence, both could proceed parallel.

Rajasthan High Court Stays Demand Notice Against HDFC, Cites RBI Circular Allowing Banks To Display Signboard On Premises Without Fee

Title: Hdfc Bank Limited v Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/2025)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 206

The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, recently, passed an interim order in a writ petition filed by HDFC bank. In the interim order, the court stayed the effect and operation of a demand notice issued by the Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu to HDFC Bank.

While considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, the court ordered that the operation and effect of the impugned notice by the Municipal corporation be stayed until the next date of hearing. The bench also clarified that the interim order would come into effect only after the service of notice upon the respondents.

S.170 BNSS Confers 'Limited Preventive Jurisdiction' On Executive Magistrate, Can't Continue Incarceration Punitively: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Mohammad Abid & Ors. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 207

The Rajasthan High Court recently noted that Section 170 of the BNSS conferred “limited preventive jurisdiction” to the Executive Magistrate and that such preventive action was not a tool for punitive action or a substitute for criminal procedure.

Justice Farjand Ali criticised the action of an Executive Magistrate in detaining persons and granting them bail on an extra-statutory condition of producing a character certificate. The court noted that instead of operating as a Magistrate under a Constitutional democracy, the Executive Magistrate had acted like a “Raja” dispensing justice at whim.

“It is evident that the Executive Magistrate, instead of acting in accordance with the limited preventive jurisdiction vested in him under B.N.S.S., has arrogated to himself an authority akin to that of a sovereign — operating not as a magistrate under a constitutional democracy, but more as a Raja dispensing justice at whim. The distinction between personal discretion and rule of law lies at the very foundation of our legal system, and the impugned conduct strikes at that very foundation”.

Can't Reserve Judgment For Indefinite Period: Rajasthan High Court Tells Appellate Rent Tribunal On Plea By Tenant Fearing Eviction

Title: Ramswaroop v Moolchand & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 208

Rajasthan High Court has ruled that Appellate Rent Tribunal is not expected to reserve judgment for an indefinite period, especially when the arguments in a matter before it were heard and concluded months ago.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that as per Section 19(8) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, the Tribunal shall dispose the appeal within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of service of notice of appeal on the respondents.

Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Balaji Baliram Mupade & Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra & Ors. in which the Apex Court considered it imperative that judicial discipline required promptness in delivery of judgments. Similarly, in another case of Anil Rai v State of Bihar, it was held that once the matters were reserved for pronouncement of order, the same should be done within a reasonable time schedule.

S.15 Rajasthan Rent Control Act | Requirement Of Submitting Affidavit/Documents With Reply Only Directory In Nature: High Court Reiterates

Title: Shankar Lal v Jugal Kishore & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 209

While relying upon the ruling of the division bench in the case of Ramesh Kumar v Chandu Lal & Another, Rajasthan High Court reiterated that Section 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (“the Act”) was not mandatory but directory in nature.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Rent Tribunal that rejected the petitioner's application to take on record the affidavit submitted by him on the ground that as per Section 15, these had to be submitted along with the reply.

Last-Seen-Theory Can't Be Invoked Unless Prosecution Establishes Prima Facie Case: Rajasthan High Court Acquits Death Row Convicts

Title: State of Rajasthan v Sharafat & Anr, and other connected matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 210

While setting aside death penalty and acquitting the appellants, accused for murdering a family of 6, including 4 children, Rajasthan High Court held that the importance of last-seen-together evidence could not be "over-emphasized" in a criminal trial as this by itself is not sufficient to record conviction of an accused.

The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma opined that before the onus shifted on the accused by operation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it must be held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the accused.

Reference was made to the Apex Court case of Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju v State in which it was held that if a person was last seen with the deceased, he must offer explanation about how he parted company, and if he failed burden under Section 106 was not discharged. However, this did not mean that section 106 shifted the burden of proof of a criminal trial on the accused. Such burden always rested on the prosecution.

Rajasthan High Court Emphasises Reformative Aspect Of Criminal Justice, Grants Temporary Bail To NDPS Accused To Care For Pregnant Wife

Title: Bhawani Pratap Singh v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 211

While denying regular bail to an NDPS accused, Rajasthan High Court granted a temporary bail of 60 days to take care of his wife who was pregnant, due to deliver a baby in a few days, and had no one else to take care of her and provide medical assistance.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that even though such ground in itself was not sufficient to warrant regular bail, temporary bail could be granted as a balanced approach to accommodate legitimate personal concerns of the accused, while upholding legal sanctity and custodial process.

Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Interfere With Bulldozer Action On Encroachments Over Catchment Area Of Ummed Sagar Dam

Title: Hari Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 212

Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by the alleged encroachers of the catchment area of the Ummed Sagar Dam against State's action of dispossession, the bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal at the Rajasthan High Court held that no possession over land forming part of water body could be regularized.

After hearing the contentions, the Court accepted the arguments put forth on behalf of the State, and highlighted that the land in question was owned by the P.H.E.D. Department and formed part of the catchment area of the Ummed Sagar Dam.

Rajasthan High Court Upholds 25% Domicile Reservation In National Law University Jodhpur

Title: Anindita Biswas v National Law University, Jodhpur & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 213

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the constitutional validity of 25% domicile-based reservation at National Law University, Jodhpur (“NLUJ”), ruling that such reservation did not violate Article 14 since the classification was reasonable, non-arbitrary and maintained a rational nexus with the object of advancing regional educational development.

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali took note of many other NLUs that have introduced domicile-based reservation based on their respective states, and opined that the state had merely aligned NLUJ with the normative structure followed by its sister NLUs.

Reference was also made to the Supreme Court case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, wherein the Apex Court recognized the permissibility of domicile-based preferences in admissions to higher educational institutions particularly when the institutions were established and maintained by a State.

When Can An Order Passed U/S 47 CPC Be Treated As A Decree? Rajasthan High Court Explains

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that orders passed by courts under Section 47 of the CPC read with Order XXI Rules 58, 97, and 99 of the CPC, would be treated as decrees and are appealable under Section 96 CPC.

Justice Munnuri Laxman noted that Section 47 dealt with both— orders that can be treated as decrees and those that cannot be treated as decrees. The court added that those orders which were passed with reference to Rule 58, 97, and 99 would be considered as decrees as the same has been specifically provided under Rule 58(4) and Rule 103 of Order XXI.

The court noted that all other orders passed under Section 47 [except those under Rule 58,97, and 99] could not be treated as a decree. The court added that since an appeal would lie only from a decree passed by the court as per Section 96, the orders passed under Section 47 read with Rule 58,97 and, 99 were appealable orders and all other orders passed under Section 47 would not be appealable orders.

Title: X v Y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 214

Rajasthan Minor Minerals Rules | Rajasthan High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Penalty Imposed For Extension Of LOI Under Rule 16(2)

Title: Banarsi Das Mittal v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 215

Upholding the constitutional validity of the Proviso 3 to Rule 16(2) (“the Provision”) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (“2017 Rules”) Rajasthan High Court ruled that once the rule was held to be constitutionally and statutorily valid, any action by the State in furtherance thereof could not be faulted merely on grounds of hardship or inconvenience.

The Provision provided for extension of the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued subject to payment of a penalty at the rate of 10% of the annual dead rent for every month for such extended period from the date of issuance of LOI.

The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali also observed that mining activity had significant environmental and economic implications, and delays in securing mandatory clearances, even if procedurally cumbersome, could not indefinitely stall the process. “In the broader public interest, the legislature is entitled to place the onus on the applicant to comply expeditiously with statutory prerequisites”.

Rajasthan High Court Rejects Bail Application Of Man Accused Of Creating Dummy Firms To Evade ₹704 Crore In GST Payments

Title: Ankit Bansal v Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 216

Rajasthan High Court denied bail to Ankit Bansal, accused in a Rs. 704 Crore GST evasion scam, on account of his concealment of past criminal antecedents, attempt to abscond from custody using his influence and power, and the magnitude of the siphoned amount.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma rejected the argument of parity on account of the co-accused Mr. Rajesh Goyal being released on bail, ruling that while applying the principle of parity, conduct and role of the accused had to be focused upon.

Rejecting the argument of parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail, the Court specifically referred to the “extraordinary circumstances” in the applicant's case.

“there are clear and manifest antecedents against the petitioner (which have been suppressed by the petitioner) and the magnitude of allegations against him is quite higher, which is crossing more than 700 Crores. Since during the pendency of instant bail application, the accused-petitioner has attempted to abscond, which evidently involves extraordinary circumstances…Hence, in the light of the above possibility of his absconding and influencing the witnesses can not be ruled out.”

'Mere Error In Judgement Is Not Criminal Negligence': Rajasthan High Court Acquits Constable Under Whose Watch Two Undertrials Escaped

Title: Mushtaq Ali v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 217

While acquitting a police constable charged under Section 223 (IPC) following absconsion of two under-trial prisons from his guard, Rajasthan High Court held that when a police officer was tasked with dual and simultaneous duties like guarding as well as attending wireless operations, expectations of flawless supervision must be weighed against practical limitations of manpower and infrastructure.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further held that the primary requirement of Section 223 i.e. criminal negligence, was fulfilled on gross and culpable failure to exercise the degree of care which an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. Not every error in judgment, lapse, or inadvertence constituted criminal negligence.

Unwarranted Freezing Of Bank Accounts A Growing Concern Implicating Financial Hardships On Businesses And Individuals: Rajasthan HC

Title: Smt. Kailash Kanwar Rathore & Ors. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 218

Rajasthan High Court highlighted the growing concern of Indian businesses and corporate entities owing to unwarranted freezing of bank accounts by the investigating authorities in a mechanical manner implicating significant financial hardships on the concerned parties.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg opined that such actions were frequently predicated merely on allegations or suspicion of tainted funds being credited into the accounts of innocent business entities or individuals that severely impaired operational functioning of the business.

Pregnant Minor's Willingness To Retain Pregnancy Prevails Over Her Mother's Plea To Terminate It: Rajasthan High Court

Title: X v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 219

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition filed by a mother seeking termination of pregnancy of her minor daughter (17 years, 5 months old) in light of the daughter's unwillingness to abort the pregnancy, upholding the right of a pregnant minor victim to retain her pregnancy.

Highlighting that the minor victim had sufficient level of understanding about the consequences of her actions, the bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali observed that pregnant woman had the autonomy over her body and it was only she who had the right to choose whether to terminate the pregnancy or not.

Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of Suchita Srivastava & Anr. Vs. Chandigarh Administration wherein it was held that right to make reproductive choices was a facet of Art. 21, and the consent of the pregnant women in the matter of such choices was paramount. No entity, even the state, could speak on behalf of the pregnant person and usurp her consent.

Rajasthan HC Grants Relief To IIT-JEE Candidate Barred For 2 Years After Being Caught Allegedly Copying From Another Candidate's Answers

Title: Mahir Bishnoi v National Testing Agency & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 220

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to an IIT-JEE aspirant who was barred by the National Testing Agency from giving the exam for academic sessions 2025-26 and 2026-27 after he was allegedly found using unfair means and was looking into the answer sheet of a fellow candidate sitting right adjacent to him.

While highlighting that such a stigmatising penalty could not have been inflicted without providing an opportunity of hearing, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that the inflicted penalty would certainly spoil the petitioner's career and create an impediment on his way to getting public employment.

Right To Travel Abroad: Rajasthan High Court Permits Foreign Visit Of PMLA Accused Subject To ₹25 Lakh Bank Guarantee

Title: Ashutosh Bajoria v Rajesh Kumar Sharma (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 12/2023)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 221

The Rajasthan High Court has allowed a man, arrested in a PMLA case, to travel to Dubai and Singapore for business meetings— reiterating that the expression 'personal liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to go abroad.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) where it was held that “the expression 'personal liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wider amplitude, which includes right to go abroad. A person cannot be deprived to this right except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law”.

Rajasthan High Court Directs State To Provide Interpreter, Extra Time In Practical Exams For Student With 100% Hearing Loss

Title: Manisha Mina v State of Rajasthan & Others

Granting interim relief to a student suffering from 100% hearing impairment, Rajasthan High Court directed the State to provide two interpreters to the petitioner, one for assisting her in preparation of theoretical examines, and another for assistance in preparation as well as at the time of the practical exams.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further directed the State to provide one extra hour and one additional copy to the petitioner during theoretical and practical examinations.

'High Time To Set Up Administrative Judicial Academy': Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Revenue Court Order For Flouting Mandatory CPC Provisions

Title: Umakant Sharma v Om Prakash Sharma

Rajasthan High Court held that the presiding officers in the Revenue Courts who were posted from the Administrative Services did not possess any legal background neither did they undergo any formal legal training. Hence, on many occasions, it was noticed that they commit procedural mistakes while deciding suits and appeals without following mandatory CPC provisions.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that it was high and right time to establish an “Administrative Judicial Academy” for such officers of Administrative Services wherein they can be imparted both pre-service and in-service training. The Court held that this need was neglected for a long time by the Government of Rajasthan, leading to disastrous results.

 The Court laid down following steps for the State:

1. Establish an Administrative Judicial Academy to organize mandatory training program for newly appointed and in-service administrative officers.
2. Conduct research on judicial reforms for management and access to justice.
3. Promote judicial innovation, through seminars, colloquium, and workshops.
4. Develop a comprehensive curriculum that blends theory with practical training of procedural laws.
5. Sensitize the officers to expedite disposal of matters without granting unnecessary adjournments.

'Highly Vulnerable Youth, Fall Into Poverty Cycle': Rajasthan High Court In PIL Over Difficulties Faced By CCLs After Leaving Shelter Homes

Title: In Re: Grievance of Girls staying at Balika Grah and Care Leavers fighting for their Identity and Rights after leaving Shelter Homes

Taking note of letter received from the children residing at Balika Grah, Alwar, regarding severe challenges being faced by them owing to non-receipt of grant in aid due to inaction by the State, Rajasthan High Court registered a suo-moto PIL opining that transitioning from institutional care to independent living was a vulnerable phase for every kid who had spent his/her childhood in shelter homes.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that there was a need for greater investment, awareness and accountability to ensure that every child in a shelter home who transitioned to adulthood and was moving out of the institutional care (“Care Leavers”) received robust, comprehensive and sustained support in the form of education, housing, employment and emotional well-being.

Furthermore, the Court laid down the certain steps to be taken by the Centre as well as the State Government by enacting a law, framing policies etc. at their own level, for well-being of the Care Leavers.