A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench held that a government servant who asked, before the date fixed for his voluntary retirement, to defer it had in effect withdrawn the notice, so the State could not retire him on that date (paras 15-18). But the Single Judge should not have ordered reinstatement, which the writ petition never sought (paras 20-22). The order was modified and both appeals disposed of (paras 23-24).
The Rajasthan High Court imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the State for forcing a Prabodhak to litigate for the correction of her name in her service record, a clerical mistake the department had made and fixed only after the Court issued notice (paras 9-10, 15). Calling it culpable inaction, the Court allowed the State to recover the costs from the official responsible after a show cause notice (paras 11, 15).
A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench allowed a husband's appeal against the Family Court's refusal of divorce and dissolved the marriage (paras 1, 20). It held that the wife's bigamy complaint against him, a police constable, closed by an accepted negative final report, and her Section 498A case ending in his acquittal amounted to cruelty, as did more than 15 years of separation; it also found that she had deserted him without justified reason (paras 14-17).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur held that consenting adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to police protection, because choosing a partner is a personal freedom protected by the Constitution (para 5). Family disapproval cannot by itself justify interference with their life and liberty (para 6). The couple's writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the police to enquire into the alleged threat (para 7).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the reservation of the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Manchi for an OBC woman in the 2026 Panchayati Raj elections, although the same office had been reserved for an SC woman in 2020 (paras 1-2, 21). Reservation for women is horizontal and runs across the vertical SC, ST and Backward Class categories, so an earlier reservation for women does not by itself bar a later one (paras 14, 19). The writ petition was dismissed (para 22).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed criminal defamation proceedings pending since 2003 against Rajasthan Patrika and its Editor-in-Chief over a local news report, holding that neither the complaint nor the evidence attributed any specific role or intention to them, and that a newspaper company is not liable without proof of its management's knowledge. Cognizance without the ingredients of defamation undermines press freedom (paras 35-42, 49-50).
On a State appeal against sentence, the Rajasthan High Court held that Section 21 of the Juvenile Justice Act bars only death and life imprisonment without the possibility of release for a child in conflict with law, so life imprisonment with the possibility of release remains available. The Children's Court had imposed ten years' rigorous imprisonment for murder without giving any reason, so the sentence was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh sentencing (paras 6-7).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur discharged an accused charged under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act. It held that statements of co-accused recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as confessions after Tofan Singh, and that a bare allegation that the accused ‘cooperated’ in the narcotic trade, with no overt act, transaction or recovery attributed to him, does not disclose abetment or conspiracy. The ₹68,500 found on him showed no nexus with the offence (paras 9-21).
The Rajasthan High Court refused a complainant's plea to cancel anticipatory bail granted by a Sessions Judge in a cheating and forgery case, holding that a bail-cancellation plea is not an appeal over the bail order. The Sessions Judge had weighed the fifteen-year delay in lodging the FIR, rulings of other forums in the accused's favour and his antecedents (paras 6-7.1, 9-14).
The Rajasthan High Court granted anticipatory bail to a woman sought to be added as an accused in the 2018 Supervisor (Women Empowerment) recruitment paper leak case. She was not named in the FIR, in witness statements or in two charge-sheets, and the material against her rested on a chain of disclosures, which cannot by itself justify depriving a person of liberty (paras 5-5.4, 6).
The Rajasthan High Court has restored full pay and allowances to LIC employee Ram Pal Meena for his suspension period after his acquittal in a criminal case. Justice Anand Sharma rejected LIC’s reliance on the absence of an “honourable acquittal” label to withhold benefits under its staff rules. No departmental inquiry had been initiated. The Court quashed the adverse orders and restored LIC’s earlier decision treating the period as duty. (Paras 22–34)
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Magistrate's order, passed on a protest petition, taking cognizance only for culpable homicide in an assault death case, and the revisional order upholding it, because the Magistrate had weighed the medical evidence to rule out an intention to kill. Whether the case is murder or culpable homicide is for trial, not the cognizance stage (paras 14, 17-20).