The Rajasthan High Court declined a mother's plea to have her minor daughter's pregnancy terminated because the daughter, described as a rape survivor, did not want a termination (paras 1, 6.12-6.13). Holding that a pregnant woman has autonomy over her body and that a sufficiently mature minor's choice prevails over her guardian's consent, the Court upheld her right to continue the pregnancy and directed State-funded medical care and victim compensation (paras 6.2, 6.12, 7).
Acting on a letter from the children of a Balika Grah (girls' home) in Alwar about non-receipt of grant-in-aid, the Rajasthan High Court registered a suo motu PIL on their grievances and the hardship of ‘care leavers’, who must leave care at 18 (paras 12, 27, 32). It listed steps in eight areas that the Centre and State are required to take by law or policy (first para 34). A Division Bench later vacated the directions in paras 34 and 35.
The Rajasthan High Court rejected, under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, an election petition against the returned candidate for the Hanumangarh Assembly constituency. The petition alleged that 17 criminal cases were not disclosed but gave no FIR numbers, police stations or courts; the Court held that such bald pleadings disclosed no cause of action (paras 31-32, 37, 42, 47-48). A typing error citing non-existent 1967 Rules could be corrected (paras 28-30).
A candidate with congenital nystagmus and less than 20% visual disability ranked 21st in the RAS Examination, 2003 but was declared medically unfit for the RAS and placed in the Rajasthan Accounts Service. The Rajasthan High Court held that, since the 1975 medical guidelines treat both services as non-technical, the State could not find him fit for one and unfit for the other, and that a disability below the 40% benchmark cannot justify exclusion (paras 36, 42, 49). He was ordered appointed to the RAS from 21.04.2006 (para 53).
The Rajasthan High Court discharged a cricket coach charged with abetting the suicide of a fellow coach who, the complaint alleged, had been harassed and threatened in a WhatsApp group. Abetment under Section 306 IPC needs intentional instigation or aid with a clear mens rea, and mere allegations of harassment do not suffice for framing a charge (paras 10-11, 14). The defamation and insult charges also fell because the evidence did not show he sent any derogatory messages (para 25).
Taking suo motu cognizance of rising heatwaves, a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court found that, almost ten months after the Court's 2024 heatwave directions, the State had prepared no action plan and had not implemented its Heat Action Plan (paras 10-11, 15). He ordered a coordination committee, reiterated interim directions on cooling spaces, health-centre facilities, rest hours for outdoor workers and alerts, and issued show-cause notice on five further directions (paras 19, 22, 25). A Division Bench closed the petition on 05.05.2025.
The Rajasthan High Court held that Article 363 of the Constitution bars courts from deciding disputes arising out of the 1949 covenant between Jaipur's erstwhile ruler and the Union of India. Allowing four revisions by the State, it rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC the suits of a museum trust and Sawai Bhawani Singh's heirs claiming possession of, and mesne profits for, buildings occupied by the State (paras 41, 48-50).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a woman lecturer placed fourth in the Rajasthan Public Service Commission's merit list could not be passed over for promotion to Principal because she is a woman. Rule 28(3) of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 fixes seniority by the Commission's merit order and draws no line between men and women, so the separate schedules for boys' and girls' institutions gave no ground to promote lower-ranked men ahead of her (paras 15, 19, 25-27).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a 2002 charge-sheet accusing a government employee of misappropriating Rs 3,822. Departmental proceedings on the same charge had been dropped in 1991 after he deposited the amount, and a Special Judge had acquitted him in the criminal case in 2000. With no rule allowing a closed enquiry to be reopened, the second charge-sheet amounted to double jeopardy; his retiral dues were ordered released with 9% interest (paras 6-7, 11-14).
In a writ petition pending since 2016, the Rajasthan High Court found that the department's officer-in-charge (OIC) had not handed the case file to its counsel, and said all efforts to improve the State's handling of court cases had been in vain (paras 1-2, 7). It ordered circulars warning that costs for poor assistance would be recovered from erring officers, and issued a general mandamus to give every department's counsel a list of pending cases within one month (paras 9-10). The petitioner's own claim was not decided.
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that the proviso to Rule 50(4) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, which bars a government servant from withdrawing a voluntary retirement notice once its acceptance is communicated, is manifestly arbitrary under Article 14 (paras 36, 39-41). Reading it down, the Court held that a withdrawal request made before the effective retirement date must be considered on merits and administrative inconvenience (para 42). The petitioner's rejected request was sent back for fresh consideration (para 43).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed an SDM's order that required a man held in preventive proceedings to furnish three bonds of Rs 1,00,000 each from government employees and bound him for six months (para 1). Holding that such a condition has no statutory backing and is a denial of bail in the guise of grant (para 6), it declared the proceedings under Sections 126, 135 and 170 BNSS illegal and directed a circular to Executive Magistrates (paras 12-13).