The Rajasthan High Court held that higher-ranked NEET-UG 2024 candidates could not be ousted from the Stray Vacancy Round merely because their Class XI marksheets did not show Biology, when their Class XII marksheets did (paras 13.6, 14.2). Document verification was held during the Deepawali holidays in a three-hour window, and the school certificates produced on 31.10.2024 were held to be in time (paras 13.3-13.4, 15). Treating merit as the exclusive criterion, the Court cancelled two lower-ranked candidates' allotments (paras 15-17).
Acting on two Rajasthan Patrika reports of November 2024, a single judge of the Rajasthan High Court took suo motu cognizance of what he called gross negligence by hospital administrations, holding that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 (paras 7, 10, 13). He summoned reports from the Union and the State on steps to improve health care (para 15). A Division Bench closed the PIL on 11.12.2024, finding the reports vague.
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed in limine a writ petition against a Returning Officer's order accepting a candidate's nomination for the MLA election from Dausa constituency. Improper acceptance or rejection of a nomination is a ground for declaring an election void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Section 80 and Article 329(b) allow an election to be questioned only by an election petition (paras 5, 10, 12). The writ court would not examine whether the grounds for acceptance were flimsy or substantial (para 12).
The Rajasthan High Court granted 15 days' interim bail to an undertrial, in jail since 02.08.2018, so that he could attend his son's wedding; the son had filed the writ petition on his father's behalf. The Court held that Article 21, which protects an accused or undertrial too, includes the dignity of attending once-in-a-lifetime family rituals, such as a father attending his son's marriage, and that this right cannot be curtailed merely because cases are pending (paras 7, 10).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a pending departmental enquiry is no ground to refuse permission to travel abroad. Personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to go abroad, and an employer that remains free to continue its enquiry can secure the employee's presence through conditions (paras 9-10, 14-15). The respondent was directed to permit a six-day visit to the petitioner's son in Singapore, on his undertaking to return and to join the enquiry (para 16).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside the convictions and 14-year sentences of two men in a tramadol tablet case, holding that samples drawn at the spot without a Magistrate, in admitted breach of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, were enough to discard the prosecution case. The absence of independent search witnesses and a delay in sending samples to the FSL added to the doubt (paras 12, 16-21).
Acting on newspaper reports that 1.19 lakh trees were proposed to be cut for a Pumped Storage Project in Shahbad Block of Baran district, the Rajasthan High Court took suo moto cognizance and registered a public interest litigation (paras 1, 5, 11). It observed that the right to a green and healthy environment is a facet of the right to life under Article 21 (para 4). Later orders bar felling without the Court's permission; the case is pending.
The Rajasthan High Court quashed a District Magistrate's refusal of an arms licence to a renowned national shooter that rested on her father's and uncle's crimes. Only the applicant's own conduct and criminal antecedents count; family history is irrelevant, especially for a sports-quota licence (paras 23-25). Section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Arms Act allows refusal only where it is ‘necessary’ for public peace or safety, not on surmise (paras 30-31). A regular licence was ordered within ten days (para 36).
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a Section 528 BNSS petition by the registered owner of a car from which opium was seized in 2009. He challenged a 2017 order of the Special Judge (NDPS), Bhawanimandi, issuing non-bailable warrants against him on a supplementary complaint. The Court relied on his unexplained six-year delay, records showing him as the owner, the NDPS Act presumptions and his non-cooperation with the investigation (paras 10.1, 11.2-11.4, 12-13).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court set aside a 2000 order withholding a retired RAS officer's entire pension for life, holding that Rule 170 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 can be invoked only when the competent authority records its own reasoned finding of grave misconduct or grave negligence (paras 16-17, 28). A passing reference to the ‘gravity of charges’ was not enough (para 23). Instead of remanding, it awarded 50% of the withheld pension and full pension from the date of its order (paras 30-31).
The Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR under Sections 448, 427 and 143 IPC against a woman accused of trying to cross barricades put up by temple trustees, holding that seeking access to a public temple is a lawful act and the allegations disclosed no criminal intent (paras 6, 10). Private trustees cannot restrict worship in breach of Article 25, and the video and photographs showed no force or damage (paras 7, 9, 12-13).
The Rajasthan High Court held that the State discriminated on the ground of sex when, for promotion of Teacher Grade III to Teacher Grade II against the 2008-09 and 2009-10 vacancies, it considered male teachers appointed up to 1998 but female teachers appointed only up to 1986, citing the larger number of boys' schools (paras 11, 15, 23). Judging the classification by its effect, the Court found it rested on gender stereotype and ordered consideration of all similarly situated women teachers (paras 20, 24).