The Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 448, 427 and 143 IPC against a woman accused of trying to cross barricades put up by temple trustees, holding that seeking access to a public temple is a lawful act and the allegations disclosed no criminal intent (paras 6, 10). Private trustees cannot restrict worship in breach of Article 25, and the video and photographs showed no force or damage (paras 7, 9, 12-13).
The Rajasthan High Court held that the State discriminated on the ground of sex when, for promotion of Teacher Grade III to Teacher Grade II against the 2008-09 and 2009-10 vacancies, it considered male teachers appointed up to 1998 but female teachers appointed only up to 1986, citing the larger number of boys' schools (paras 11, 15, 23). Judging the classification by its effect, the Court found it rested on gender stereotype and ordered consideration of all similarly situated women teachers (paras 20, 24).
The Rajasthan High Court held that where a Hindu government servant married again without divorcing his first wife, only the legally wedded first wife is his ‘widow’ entitled to family pension under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (paras 13-14, 22). Family pension is neither a debt nor a security, so the widow cannot be asked for a succession certificate (para 38). The respondents were directed to release her family pension with arrears and 9% interest (para 41).
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man accused under Section 25 of the NDPS Act as the owner of a vehicle in which a co-accused was caught carrying opium (paras 2, 8). He was not arrested at the spot, was not the registered owner and was implicated through a purchase agreement, and nothing on record suggested that he had permitted the vehicle’s use for the offence (para 6). The Court held the rigour of Section 37 satisfied (para 7).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a hole cut in a NEET (UG) 2024 candidate's OMR sheet while the question-booklet packet was being opened could not be read as his answer (paras 33-35). The scanner had read the cut against question 38 as a filled bubble and given negative marks, so his answer to question 50 went unchecked (paras 35-37). The Court directed the National Testing Agency to treat question 38 as unattempted, check question 50 and revise his result (paras 41-42).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside an order framing charges under Sections 8/18 read with 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The only material against the petitioner was a co-accused’s statement made while in police custody, which the Court describes as recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, naming a ‘Pappu Singh’; nothing connected the petitioner with that person. Suspicion at the charge stage must rest on legally admissible evidence (paras 2-4, 6-8).
The Rajasthan High Court held that the police bear a constitutional responsibility, flowing from Articles 14 and 21, to protect adults who choose their partners or spouses and face extra-legal threats, following Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini (paras 21-24). Disposing of a married couple's protection petition, it laid down a time-bound Nodal Officer procedure for such representations and directed the State to set up Police Complaints Authorities as required by Prakash Singh (para 30).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a court's order for DNA profiling of an accused does not, by itself, violate the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), because the accused may still refuse to give a blood sample and bear the legal consequences (paras 22-25). As the application was filed after 1 July 2024, the BNSS applied, and its Section 193(9) lets the trial court permit further investigation during the trial (paras 11, 13).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by two candidates whose OMR sheets could not be machine-evaluated because one left the question booklet series blank and the other did not darken its bubble (paras 4-5). Holding that examination instructions are mandatory and that letting candidates correct rejected sheets would derail selection and invite misuse, the Court followed G. Hemalathaa and Jagdish Chandra Jat (paras 8-12).
The Rajasthan High Court declined to entertain a petition to quash an FIR under Sections 500 and 120-B IPC and Sections 66 and 66C of the Information Technology Act, holding that at the preliminary stage a quashing plea could not rest merely on self-serving affidavits (para 7). The petitioners should first have approached a superior police officer under Section 36 CrPC; the petition was disposed of with that liberty, the alleged offences being bailable (paras 8-9).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed two intra-court appeals by candidates in the 2021 Patwari recruitment examination who challenged an Expert Committee's change of the answer key, for a question on where Saint Peepa's cave is, from ‘Toda’ to ‘Gagron’ (paras 7-9, 39). Courts may interfere with an answer key only where it is demonstrably wrong without inferential reasoning; where authentic texts conflict, the benefit of doubt goes to the examining body (paras 26, 36-37).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash an SDO's notice/warrant under Sections 97-98 CrPC, issued on a complaint that a husband was illegally detaining his wife and children. These proceedings are a legally valid way to ascertain wrongful confinement, and a husband's claim that he cannot detain his own wife and children may not always hold true where there is evidence or a credible allegation of coercion, threat or abuse (paras 5-6). No coercive steps may be taken against the petitioners (para 10).