A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that no authority may approve the manufacture, sale, distribution or import of genetically modified (GM) food until regulations are framed under Section 22 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (paras 46-47, 52). Finding that the regulatory vacuum violates the right to safe food under Article 21, it directed FSSAI and the Union to frame them, preferably within six months, and required ‘GM free’ certification for food imports (paras 43, 63).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a 1993 Summary Court Martial that dismissed a Signalman for overstaying leave. The final charge-sheet was served on the day of trial, breaching the 96-hour interval in Rule 34 of the Army Rules; the officer who had declared him a deserter was nominated as his ‘friend of the accused’; and his plea of guilty lacked the Rule 115 safeguards (paras 9-12). He is deemed reinstated and continued in service till superannuation, with notional benefits and pension (paras 17-19).
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a NEET-UG 2025 candidate's writ petition. His allotted MBBS seat was treated as vacant because he paid the balance fee a day late; the great-grandmother who was his guardian had died the day before the deadline. The Court held the forfeiture of his Rs 5 lakh security deposit to be unjust enrichment (paras 7.4, 11) and let him take part in the third counseling round with his deposits adjusted (para 12). It said the order is not a precedent (para 14).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur held that delayed deposit of tax deducted at source, standing alone, cannot found a prosecution against a company's employee where the breach was venial and not contumacious or dishonest (paras 15-17). Once insolvency proceedings began and an Interim Resolution Professional took charge, the employee could at most answer for the first ten days (para 6). The Court made the rule absolute and quashed any consequential action (paras 19-21).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed five public interest petitions filed by one petitioner, appearing in person, on statues, court canteens, dress codes, liquor sales and the reporting of case citations. It held that they were not genuine PILs and that concealing his five earlier PILs violated Rule 385-F of the High Court Rules. It imposed a nominal cost of ₹11,000 for each PIL and a one-year leave condition on future PILs (paras 12-14).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's appeals and held that candidates who were in the final year of the LL.B. course when applications closed on 12.04.2024 were eligible for the 2024 Assistant Prosecution Officer recruitment (paras 5, 9-10). The advertisement made the Commission's website instructions part of the advertisement, those instructions allowed candidates appearing in the final-year examination to apply, and all of them completed the degree in 2024 (para 9).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a 10-year NDPS sentence in a 282 kg poppy husk case, holding that nothing linked the appellant to the vehicle or the contraband. A custodial statement by a person held in another case, which led to no fresh discovery, was barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and a police statement the witness did not repeat on oath was not evidence (paras 6.1-6.5, 7-8).
The Rajasthan High Court directed the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer to extend the visa of a five-year-old Australian citizen born to Indian parents for the maximum period allowed by law, without insisting on a no-objection certificate from her mother (para 20). Treating the child's best interest as paramount, the Court relied on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 21 (paras 15-17). Any OCI card application filed through her father is to be decided sympathetically (para 21).
The Rajasthan High Court revived a revenue suit in which a Scheduled Tribe landholder's only child, his daughter, seeks a declaration of her khatedari rights in ancestral land. The Board of Revenue had rejected her plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC solely because Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 excludes Scheduled Tribes (para 5). Following the Supreme Court in Tirth Kumar and Ram Charan, the Court quashed that order and sent the suit for trial on merits (paras 6-8).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a plaintiff whose dispute is settled through a mode recognised by Section 89 CPC is entitled to a refund of the full court fee paid on the plaint under Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, even where the settlement comes after the decree, during execution (paras 5-6, second paras 6-7). It set aside a Bikaner trial court order refusing the refund (para 8).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by a candidate with low vision who sought appointment as Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi) in the physically handicapped category. Rule 10 of the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 requires passing a Hindi shorthand speed test at 70 words per minute, and his speed was assessed at 50.167 WPM (paras 9, 13). Aggregate marks of 121.142 and unfilled reserved posts gave him no vested right to appointment (para 16).
The Rajasthan High Court granted anticipatory bail to a woman accused of illicit opium poppy cultivation, holding that Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply because cultivation under Section 18(c) has no quantity threshold. The case rested only on her minor son's uncorroborated statement in custody, the land stood in another person's name, and she was covered by the first proviso to Section 437(1) CrPC (paras 6, 9-13, 22).