The Rajasthan High Court held that where a Hindu government servant married again without divorcing his first wife, only the legally wedded first wife is his ‘widow’ entitled to family pension under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (paras 13-14, 22). Family pension is neither a debt nor a security, so the widow cannot be asked for a succession certificate (para 38). The respondents were directed to release her family pension with arrears and 9% interest (para 41).
The Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a man accused under Section 25 of the NDPS Act as the owner of a vehicle in which a co-accused was caught carrying opium (paras 2, 8). He was not arrested at the spot, was not the registered owner and was implicated through a purchase agreement, and nothing on record suggested that he had permitted the vehicle’s use for the offence (para 6). The Court held the rigour of Section 37 satisfied (para 7).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a hole cut in a NEET (UG) 2024 candidate's OMR sheet while the question-booklet packet was being opened could not be read as his answer (paras 33-35). The scanner had read the cut against question 38 as a filled bubble and given negative marks, so his answer to question 50 went unchecked (paras 35-37). The Court directed the National Testing Agency to treat question 38 as unattempted, check question 50 and revise his result (paras 41-42).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside an order framing charges under Sections 8/18 read with 8/29 of the NDPS Act. The only material against the petitioner was a co-accused’s statement made while in police custody, which the Court describes as recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, naming a ‘Pappu Singh’; nothing connected the petitioner with that person. Suspicion at the charge stage must rest on legally admissible evidence (paras 2-4, 6-8).
The Rajasthan High Court held that the police bear a constitutional responsibility, flowing from Articles 14 and 21, to protect adults who choose their partners or spouses and face extra-legal threats, following Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini (paras 21-24). Disposing of a married couple's protection petition, it laid down a time-bound Nodal Officer procedure for such representations and directed the State to set up Police Complaints Authorities as required by Prakash Singh (para 30).
The Rajasthan High Court held that a court's order for DNA profiling of an accused does not, by itself, violate the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), because the accused may still refuse to give a blood sample and bear the legal consequences (paras 22-25). As the application was filed after 1 July 2024, the BNSS applied, and its Section 193(9) lets the trial court permit further investigation during the trial (paras 11, 13).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by two candidates whose OMR sheets could not be machine-evaluated because one left the question booklet series blank and the other did not darken its bubble (paras 4-5). Holding that examination instructions are mandatory and that letting candidates correct rejected sheets would derail selection and invite misuse, the Court followed G. Hemalathaa and Jagdish Chandra Jat (paras 8-12).
The Rajasthan High Court declined to entertain a petition to quash an FIR under Sections 500 and 120-B IPC and Sections 66 and 66C of the Information Technology Act, holding that at the preliminary stage a quashing plea could not rest merely on self-serving affidavits (para 7). The petitioners should first have approached a superior police officer under Section 36 CrPC; the petition was disposed of with that liberty, the alleged offences being bailable (paras 8-9).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed two intra-court appeals by candidates in the 2021 Patwari recruitment examination who challenged an Expert Committee's change of the answer key, for a question on where Saint Peepa's cave is, from ‘Toda’ to ‘Gagron’ (paras 7-9, 39). Courts may interfere with an answer key only where it is demonstrably wrong without inferential reasoning; where authentic texts conflict, the benefit of doubt goes to the examining body (paras 26, 36-37).
The Rajasthan High Court refused to quash an SDO's notice/warrant under Sections 97-98 CrPC, issued on a complaint that a husband was illegally detaining his wife and children. These proceedings are a legally valid way to ascertain wrongful confinement, and a husband's claim that he cannot detain his own wife and children may not always hold true where there is evidence or a credible allegation of coercion, threat or abuse (paras 5-6). No coercive steps may be taken against the petitioners (para 10).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a GST appellate order that had quashed a manufacturer's refund of accumulated input tax credit solely on the basis of Circular No. 135/15/2020-GST. A Division Bench of the Court had already held, in Baker Hughes Asia Pacific Limited, that the circular conflicts with Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act (paras 5-6). As the circular had not withstood judicial scrutiny, the Department's appeal was remitted to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision (para 7).
The Rajasthan High Court set aside a magistrate's order directing a cheque-case accused to pay 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The order recorded only that arguments were heard and the file examined, without any reasons (paras 2-3). The trial court has the power, but must exercise it in line with the Supreme Court's parameters in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand (paras 4-6).