The Rajasthan High Court referred to a Special/Larger Bench the question whether a married person living with an unmarried person, or two persons each still married to someone else, can get a protection order from the Court without dissolving their marriages, because co-ordinate Benches had taken conflicting views (paras 22, 36, 41-42). In the same order it directed that, until legislation is framed, live-in-relationship agreements be registered by a competent authority in each district (paras 18-20).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a Special Judge's refusal to have a fresh sample of seized MDMA tested. The accused said the sample sent to the laboratory did not come from the contraband in the maalkhana; holding that a fair trial includes verifying such evidence, the Court directed a Magistrate to draw 10 grams from the remaining 380 grams for the FSL, which must report within 30 days (paras 13, 21, 27-28).
Taking suo motu cognizance of rising ‘digital arrest’ scams, a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court observed that ‘digital arrest’ has no legal standing in India and that no provision allows police to arrest anyone by video call or online monitoring (paras 6, 26). He registered a public interest petition against the Union, the RBI, the NPCI and Rajasthan authorities and called for reports on the steps taken (paras 29-31). A Division Bench closed the petition on 31.07.2025.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the doctrine of relation back applies to the result of an improvement examination and that, once such a result is announced, it must be followed through to its logical conclusion (paras 4-5). It directed the respondents to consider and appoint a candidate for Lecturer (English) subject to her merit, treating her M.A. as awarded in 2001 and counting her experience as an English Teacher since 15.07.2002, with notional benefits only (para 6).
A day after a truck collided with an LPG tanker on the Jaipur-Ajmer highway, a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court took suo motu cognizance of the fire (paras 1, 15). Calling the announced payments and inquiry committee insufficient (paras 12-13), the Court issued notice to the Union and the State on proposed directions for an enquiry, compensation, relocation of hazardous units, district disaster plans and black-spot safety (para 15). The petition is still pending.
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur struck down the note to Serial No. 11A of Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which levied an ‘additional fee’ of fifty rupees for each day of delay after a transport vehicle's fitness certificate expired (paras 2, 52). It held that the charge was a penalty in the garb of a fee, which neither Section 64(o) nor Section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 authorises (paras 39, 42, 52).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that a writ court should not raise a medical college's intake by an interim order, following consistent Supreme Court rulings (paras 28, 30). The Single Judge's order raising JIET Medical College's MBBS seats from 50 to 100 ought not to have been passed, but because 50 students had already joined and studied for about a month, the Bench left it in place and asked for the writ petition to be decided quickly (paras 31-32).
The Rajasthan High Court held that an order framing charge is neither interlocutory nor final, so the bar in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. does not apply and a revision against it is maintainable (paras 9-11). But because the High Court and the Sessions Court share revisional jurisdiction, the accused should first approach the Sessions Court unless special circumstances exist (paras 16-18). The petition was dismissed with liberty to go to the Sessions Court (para 20).
Faced with conflicting Division Bench rulings, the Rajasthan High Court referred to a Special/Larger Bench whether a prisoner convicted under Section 376 IPC or the POCSO Act can be shifted from jail to an Open Air Camp in view of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (paras 19-20). The Supreme Court had dismissed the State's special leave petition in Asharam @ Ashu on its peculiar facts but kept the question of law open (paras 12-13).
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a daughter who becomes a widow or divorcee only after a government servant’s death is not entitled to family pension under Rules 66 and 67 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. Under Rule 4, the right is fixed on the date of retirement or death (para 23), and a 2013 circular extending the benefit could not override the Rules (paras 29, 31). Four writ petitions by widowed daughters were dismissed (para 32).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a writ petition, treated as a public interest litigation, against the appointment of Additional Advocate Generals and Law Officers through the State's circulars of 12 February and 12 March 2024 (paras 2, 23). The Bench held that the State's choice of its lawyers can be challenged only if shown arbitrary, and found no public interest and no pleaded facts against any appointee (paras 13, 16, 20).
Acting on a Rajasthan Patrika report that working women were drinking less water for fear of having to use a toilet, a Rajasthan High Court judge took suo motu cognizance and held that women have the right to safe and clean toilets at all convenient places, a right that impacts their right to live with human dignity (paras 11, 13-14). The Court issued show-cause notice on 31 proposed directions for women's public toilets (para 15).