Disposing of a public interest petition over the crowds at Ramdevra Temple in Jaisalmer district, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that healthcare and law and order are the State's responsibility and that it must act to prevent stampedes and contagious disease (para 3). It constituted a committee headed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, to provide sanitation, healthcare and law and order for devotees, deciding within a week (para 4).
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a trial court's refusal to order the respondent department to produce the sanction order, Chak Plan and survey sheet for a water pond in a civil suit. Being public documents, copies could be obtained under the applicable law, and discovery under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 CPC cannot ordinarily be invoked merely because it is convenient to obtain evidence through the opposite party (paras 5.3, 5.4, 6).
Deciding a public interest petition on the Jawai leopard landscape in Pali, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court adopted an aerial distance of one kilometre around mapped leopard caves, dens, breeding sites and corridors as an interim construction-control zone (paras 10-11). The Court called it an evidence-informed threshold, not a permanent boundary, pending mapping and a State policy, and ordered strict enforcement of a 2015 Government order and the safari SOP (paras 10-11).
At its Kolhapur bench, the Bombay High Court found prima facie discriminatory the omission of Scheduled Tribes from a Government Circular of 4 September 2026 that gave other reserved categories three more months to submit caste validity certificates. In an interim order on a Scheduled Tribe student's petition, it held her entitled to the extension, directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide her tribe claim within six weeks and barred cancellation of her admission till the next date, 28 September 2026 (paras 5-8).
The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur rejected a writ petition against the deletion of a voter's name from the electoral rolls for the 2026 Nagar Palika general elections, holding that once the State Election Commission declared the election programme the election process had begun and the bar in Article 243-ZG applied automatically (paras 2, 9-11). The grievance could not be adjudicated at that stage (para 10).
The Madras High Court dismissed two writ petitions on the Kudamuzhukku (Kumbabishekam) of Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai, fixed for 17.09.2026 (para 120). A Tamil Velvi Asiriyar's plea to perform the sacred-fire rituals in Tamil could not be granted while the issue is sub judice before the Supreme Court, and equal recitation of Tamil hymns with Sanskrit could not be ordered without a law, since a writ court implements and declares the law and does not make it (para 120).
The Rajasthan High Court directed the Bar Council of Rajasthan to dispose of all advocate-enrolment applications pending on 03.09.2026 by 09.09.2026 and to inform the candidates (para 7). Justice Shubha Mehta, taking judicial notice that the Council's elections were over, held that the delay in enrolment, stalled since an ad hoc committee was cancelled in March 2026, was affecting candidates' right to livelihood (paras 6-7).
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court disposed of a 2018 public interest petition seeking Art Teachers for Kala Shiksha in government schools, after the State said that art education in Classes I to X would be taught by teachers who studied Arts in their B.Ed. course (paras 2, 4). The Court was satisfied that the State had complied with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and closed the connected contempt petition (paras 5-6).
The Rajasthan High Court directed the authorities to issue a no dues certificate to a man seeking to contest a Panchayati Raj election, which they had refused until he cleared recovery dues against his wife from her 1995-2000 tenure as Sarpanch. Husband and wife are separate entities, and neither the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 nor the 1996 Rules allows recovery from a Sarpanch's family members without proof of their own involvement (paras 9-12).
The Madras High Court at Madurai held that a man who exposed himself to an 11-year-old boy without any physical contact could not be convicted of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, but was guilty of sexual harassment under Section 11(i) (paras 11-12). It altered the conviction and reduced the sentence from three years to one year of rigorous imprisonment (paras 5, 15-16).
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai held that a joint petition for divorce by mutual consent under the Special Marriage Act can be presented in the court within whose limits the husband resides, since the wife may choose that forum and territorial objections can be waived (paras 6-7). It set aside the Thanjavur Family Court's dismissal for want of jurisdiction and itself dissolved the marriage (para 9).
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai dismissed a court employee's plea for promotion as Bench Clerk Grade I, holding that converting her charge memo from Rule 17B to Rule 17A in February 2026 did not relate back to the original memo of July 2025 (para 7). She was rightly overlooked first because of the pending charge and then because of the currency of a censure (para 7).