Deciding a public interest petition on the Jawai leopard landscape in Pali, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court adopted an aerial distance of one kilometre around mapped leopard caves, dens, breeding sites and corridors as an interim construction-control zone (paras 10-11). The Court called it an evidence-informed threshold, not a permanent boundary, pending mapping and a State policy, and ordered strict enforcement of a 2015 Government order and the safari SOP (paras 10-11).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur rejected a writ petition against the deletion of a voter's name from the electoral rolls for the 2026 Nagar Palika general elections, holding that once the State Election Commission declared the election programme the election process had begun and the bar in Article 243-ZG applied automatically (paras 2, 9-11). The grievance could not be adjudicated at that stage (para 10).
The Rajasthan High Court directed the Bar Council of Rajasthan to dispose of all advocate-enrolment applications pending on 03.09.2026 by 09.09.2026 and to inform the candidates (para 7). Justice Shubha Mehta, taking judicial notice that the Council's elections were over, held that the delay in enrolment, stalled since an ad hoc committee was cancelled in March 2026, was affecting candidates' right to livelihood (paras 6-7).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court disposed of a 2018 public interest petition seeking Art Teachers for Kala Shiksha in government schools, after the State said that art education in Classes I to X would be taught by teachers who studied Arts in their B.Ed. course (paras 2, 4). The Court was satisfied that the State had complied with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and closed the connected contempt petition (paras 5-6).
The Rajasthan High Court directed the authorities to issue a no dues certificate to a man seeking to contest a Panchayati Raj election, which they had refused until he cleared recovery dues against his wife from her 1995-2000 tenure as Sarpanch. Husband and wife are separate entities, and neither the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 nor the 1996 Rules allows recovery from a Sarpanch's family members without proof of their own involvement (paras 9-12).
Hearing a criminal petition on the Paperless Module, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand of the Rajasthan High Court found that only the stay application, not the main petition, had been scanned and uploaded. Rejecting the explanations of the dealing clerk and the scanning firm, the Court recorded its displeasure (paras 3-4). It directed that the order be placed before the Chief Justice for an amended Standing Order fixing staff responsibility and making the Paperless Module mandatory in all matters (para 12).
The Rajasthan High Court held that when a higher authority finds an order of remand unsustainable, it must send the matter back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits, not reject the plaintiff's suit, which would deprive the plaintiff of a first appeal (paras 12, 14). Following P.E. Prasannakumari v. T.K. Ambujakshi, it quashed a Board of Revenue judgment and remanded the appeal to the Revenue Appellate Authority (paras 11, 15).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a trial court's order taking a defendant's belated written statement on record in a 2021 injunction suit. In non-commercial suits the time schedule in Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is directory, and there is no straitjacket formula for sufficient reason: each explanation turns on its own facts (paras 13, 15). As the delay had not held up the suit or prejudiced the plaintiff, the writ petition was dismissed (paras 14, 16-18).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed three writ petitions by hotel and resort owners against sealing and demolition orders for constructions within one kilometre of the Sajjangarh Wildlife Sanctuary in Udaipur (paras 1, 49, 71). Deemed permission under the development law cannot override the eco-sensitive zone restrictions, and the precautionary principle and public trust doctrine require environmental protection to prevail over private investment (paras 48, 50-53, 66).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld the refusal to let a Senior Auditor withdraw the resignation he tendered to contest the 2023 Rajasthan Assembly election, which he lost (paras 3, 9). Resigning to contest was a voluntary act, losing the pension was no compelling reason, and nothing had materially changed under Rule 26(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021; contesting on a party ticket also breached political neutrality (paras 6-7).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court granted a husband divorce on the ground of cruelty, holding that the wife's denial of cohabitation since 2005 and her Section 498-A case, in which he was acquitted, each amounted to cruelty (paras 17-18). With the couple apart since 2010 and no chance of reunion, compelling them to live together would be cruelty to both, so the trial court's contrary finding was perverse (paras 19-20).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the compulsory retirement, on proportionate pension, of the in-charge of a Government Ayurved Dispensary found to have issued 24 irregular sickness/fitness certificates to one employee. As in-charge he was responsible for every entry in the dispensary's record and could not blame his subordinate; and since he never disputed issuing or signing the certificates, the use of photocopies in the enquiry made no difference (paras 15-16, 18).