A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur upheld the Reserve Bank of India's circulars of 14.11.2016 and 17.11.2016, which barred District Central Co-operative Banks from accepting or exchanging demonetised Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes. The Section 26(2) notification gave no institution an absolute right to accept such notes, the restriction rested on intelligible differentia, and the petitions of seven co-operative societies from Barmer were dismissed (paras 5.9, 5.13, 6).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside adverse remarks, and a direction to initiate disciplinary and legal proceedings, recorded against a police officer by the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Jhalawar while acquitting the accused, because he was not heard before the remarks were made. On the principle of parity it gave the same relief to another individual named in the remarks who had not challenged them. The disciplinary authority may still examine the matter independently (paras 11, 14).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed an order of the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur opening a history sheet under Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 against a man with a single conviction, because the order rested only on the registration of criminal cases and gave no reasons (para 15). Opening a history sheet requires a reasoned, speaking decision founded on a reasonable belief that the person is habitually addicted to crime; otherwise it is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 21 (paras 13-14).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a reserved-category candidate who availed no relaxation except a fee concession, and who scored above the last selected General candidate, must be placed in the General category (paras 7-9). As the OBC (Women) selectee had 61 marks against the General (Women) cut-off of 58, the Court declared her reserved-category selection illegal and ordered the petitioner, the only OBC (Women) candidate on the reserve list, to be appointed (paras 12-13).
On an interim application in a pending writ petition, the Rajasthan High Court directed Jaipur National University to release an MBBS student's original Class 12 Transfer and Migration Certificates by the next day (para 20). Documents deposited at admission serve only to verify eligibility and cannot be held as a tool to compel payment of the balance fee (para 17). Neither the information booklet nor the fee affidavits allowed such retention; the University may recover its fees by lawful means (paras 18-19).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an advocate's special appeal seeking quo warranto against the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Additional Advocate General for Supreme Court cases. The Division Bench held that, unlike the Advocate General under Article 165, an Additional Advocate General does not hold a public office (para 17). The Rajasthan State Litigation Policy, 2018 is only a guideline without statutory force, so a departure from its ten-year experience norm cannot found quo warranto (paras 22-23, 26-28).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a 2017 cognizance order for adultery under Section 497 IPC and the revisional order that upheld it (para 22). It held that the Supreme Court's declaration in Joseph Shine v. Union of India striking down Section 497 operates retrospectively and nullifies all pending prosecutions based solely on that provision, though trials concluded before that judgment cannot be reopened (para 20). Continuing this prosecution, after a negative final report, would be an abuse of process (para 21).
The Rajasthan High Court held that compassionate appointment is conferred on one member as a representative of the whole family and carries a fiduciary obligation towards the deceased employee’s other dependents (paras 13, 19). A widow appointed on an affidavit promising to maintain her parents-in-law could not enjoy the job while neglecting them. It directed the employer to deduct ₹20,000 a month from her salary from 01.11.2025 and credit it to her aged father-in-law (para 22).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash the prosecution of a Jaipur doctor under Sections 304-A and 420 IPC over the death of a newborn in 2007. After a negative police final report, CID(CB) investigated further and a charge-sheet followed. The Court held that this further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC was lawful (paras 18-20), and that the Jacob Mathew guidelines were met because expert reports of the Rajasthan Medical Council and SMS Medical College had been considered (paras 22-24).
The Rajasthan High Court refused bail to an engineering student from whose hostel room 0.31 gram of LSD on blotter papers and 6.1 gram of ganja were allegedly recovered. Taking into account that the quantity as alleged was commercial, the Section 37 NDPS bar, and a Bombay High Court Full Bench ruling that the blotter paper is part of the LSD and counts towards its weight, the Court dismissed the application without commenting on the merits (paras 3, 5-6).
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man held since March 2024 on charges under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, because the prosecution had examined only 4 of its 18 witnesses in pre-charge evidence and had still not filed the forensic report on his mobile phone (paras 6, 11). An undertrial cannot be confined indefinitely when the prosecution is not diligent, and the gravity of the charge alone cannot justify prolonged incarceration, the Court held (para 11).
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a private pharmacy college's writ petition against the State's order of 26.04.2025 banning NOCs for new B.Pharmacy courses and colleges. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy, Justice Sunil Beniwal held that the State, without legislative competence, could not impose such a ban, and that confining it to private colleges was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (paras 8.8, 9.1, 11).