Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: June 2025
Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 195 To 2024 194 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
NOMINAL INDEX
The State of Rajasthan, by District Collector Pali. & Ors. vs. Sanwariya Infrastructure Personal Restricted 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
Komal Kumawat & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and different related petitons 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
Arpit Naraniwal v State and batch 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 197
Mahipal Singh v Kundal Mal 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
Anup Agrawal v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and different related petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 199
Ajaypal Singh v State of Rajasthan, and different related petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
Gyanchand Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and different related petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
Shrilal v Smt. Bhagwati Devi 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Anr. v Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg, and different related petitions 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 203
Mohammad Anwar v the Chairman, Rajashtan NEET Ayush, and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 204
Shekharchand Sacheti & Anr. v S.M.F.G. India House Finance Firm Restricted & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
Hdfc Financial institution Restricted v Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 206
Mohammad Abid & Ors. v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
Ramswaroop v Moolchand & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
Shankar Lal v Jugal Kishore & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
State of Rajasthan v Sharafat & Anr, and different related matter 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 210
Bhawani Pratap Singh v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
Hari Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
Anindita Biswas v Nationwide Legislation College, Jodhpur & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
X v Y 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
Banarsi Das Mittal v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
Ankit Bansal v Union of India 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 216
Mushtaq Ali v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 217
Smt. Kailash Kanwar Rathore & Ors. v State of Rajasthan 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 218
X v The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
Mahir Bishnoi v Nationwide Testing Company & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 220
Ashutosh Bajoria v Rajesh Kumar Sharma (S.B. Felony Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 12/2023) 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
Manisha Mina v State of Rajasthan & Others
Umakant Sharma v Om Prakash Sharma
In Re: Grievance of Ladies staying at Balika Grah and Care Leavers combating for his or her Id and Rights after leaving Shelter Properties
Orders/Judgments of the Month
Title: The State of Rajasthan, by District Collector Pali. & Ors. vs. Sanwariya Infrastructure Personal Restricted
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 195
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket bench comprising Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Bhuwan Goyal have held that an arbitral award which grants reliefs past the specific phrases of the contract, together with compensation for losses and curiosity the place no such entitlement exists below the settlement, is patently unlawful and liable to be put aside below Part 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court docket held that awards handed past the phrases of the contract come inside the tooth of grounds out there u/s 37 of the Act for interference. It relied upon State of Rajasthan v. Nav Bharat Development Co., the place the Supreme Court docket held that “An arbitrator can not transcend the phrases of the contract between the events. Within the guise of doing justice he can not award opposite to the phrases of the contract”.
Title: Komal Kumawat & Ors. v Union of India & Ors., and different related petitons
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 196
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket dismissed the writ petitions filed difficult the constitutional validity of an modification to the Rajasthan Technical Coaching Subordinate Service Guidelines mandating possession of related Nationwide Craft Teacher Certificates (NCIC)/Crafts Teacher Coaching Scheme (CITS) Certificates for the publish of Junior Instructors.
The division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Anand Sharma opined that as per the notification issued by the State to amend the Guidelines, the requirement of possessing NCIC/CITS certificates had been just for these merchants the place the programs below CITS had been out there. It was not obligatory in all instances, and an exception was carved out for the contingencies the place the programs below CITS weren’t out there.
“Merely, given that Schedule sought to be substituted vide Notification dated 01.09.2023 is silent in respect of method of rest to be granted qua possessing NCIC/CITS certificates, even for the trades the place CITS programs will not be out there, wouldn’t invalidate the Notification dated 01.09.2023 given that it goes with out saying that O.M. dated 30.06.2023 issued by the Central Authorities would govern the sector, the place the State Guidelines are silent.”
Possibility Of Accused Benefitting From Victims’ Fear In Going To Police Can’t Be Ignored: Rajasthan High Court Declines To Quash Rape FIRs
Title: Arpit Naraniwal v State and batch
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 197
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket declined to quash two FIRs–one lodged in February 2024 and the opposite in March 2024–registered in opposition to a person accused of partaking in sexual relations with two girls below the false promise of marriage.
In doing so the court docket mentioned that within the current case, the potential for the accused taking advantage of the scenario or worry instilled in girls on reporting of sexual assault instances can’t be ignored.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur, in his order noticed that the information disclosed within the FIRs indicated that complainants had been in relationship with the petitioner for a substantial lengthy time period, however they weren’t in a “steady relationship and had been intermittent”. It famous that the events re-entered into the connection once more on being assured by the petitioner that he would marry the complainants.
Title: Mahipal Singh v Kundal Mal
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 198
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket put aside a trial court docket order which after permitting summoning of a witness had closed a celebration’s proof when the witness was not produced even after a number of alternatives, observing that “justice hurried is justice buried”.
Justice Arun Monga held that with out correct proof, adjudication would possibly lead to misguided findings. Therefore, the excessive court docket gave yet one more alternative after imposing value of Rs. 5000 on the petitioner.
“It transpires that what weighed on the thoughts of the realized trial court docket was that granting of additional alternative to the petitioner would lead to delay of the trial proceedings. Little doubt, granting of alternative would have resulted in delay, however the identical might have been compensated by imposing value. Whereas justice delayed is justice denied, on the similar time, justice hurried is justice buried. With out correct proof, being adduced earlier than the realized trial court docket, the adjudication on the problems concerned, could lead to misguided findings“.
Title: Anup Agrawal v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and different related petitions
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 199
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket upheld the constitutional validity of a State modification to an April 22 instruction booklet issued on NEET-PG 2024, in regards to the six-month Ultrasound Coaching Course below the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Strategies Guidelines (the Guidelines) that launched a brand new eligibility standards for admission.
Whereas upholding the constitutional validity of the addendum introduced in by the modification, Justice Sameer Jain opined that the maxim “salus populi suprema lex esto” (the welfare of the folks shall be the supreme regulation) guided the State in formulating healthcare-related instructional coverage. The dual standards of institutional desire and in-service desire served the bigger public curiosity and had been grounded in rational and non-arbitrary classification.
Title: Ajaypal Singh v State of Rajasthan, and different related petitions
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 200
Quashing FIRs in opposition to over 50 farmers said to be “peacefully protesting” on Jawai Dam water distribution situation, Rajasthan Excessive Court docket mentioned that a person taking to the streets to protest to safeguard their rights when their curiosity had been affected didn’t indicate that they’d dedicated offences alleged below IPC and Nationwide Highways Act.
Observing that Part 8B of Nationwide Highways Act was not relevant in opposition to the petitioners Justice Farjand Ali in his order mentioned:
“In a silent protest, it can’t be presumed that any particular person has triggered hurt to public property or to any particular person. It’s properly understood that water is a fundamental necessity, and for farmers, it’s a matter of survival and livelihood. Their wrath and resentment, subsequently, is pure. If they arrive ahead to request that the authorities ought to maintain discussions in a setting the place they really feel snug significantly when the end result immediately impacts their lives and in the event that they specific their dissent in opposition to a call taken by the authorities in a democratic method, there may be nothing illegal in that. Moreover, if a bunch stands in a public place, a point of obstruction is inevitable, however that alone doesn’t represent an offence, particularly within the absence of violence or harm. Subsequently, the substances of Part 8B will not be fulfilled“.
Title: Gyanchand Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and different related petitions
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 201
Whereas listening to pleas in opposition to demolition drives for street widening allegedly performed with out following process, the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket directed the State to first rely variety of crops/bushes that are to be eliminated for beautification work and street enlargement, and subsequently plant bushes ten instances of this quantity in close by public areas.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that planting bushes and crops was an initiative thought of acceptable by the Court docket, as thriving tree, whether or not for many years or centuries offered steady and silent advantages to the town and its surrounding neighborhood.
Issue Of Non-Joinder In Amendment To Written Statement Holds No Weight Unless Party Is Indispensable Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Rajasthan HC
Title: Shrilal v Smt. Bhagwati Devi
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 202
Whereas upholding Trial Court docket’s order of dismissing utility to amend the written assertion, the bench of Justice Arun Monga on the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket held that the plaintiff being the grasp of the lis couldn’t be compelled to incorporate or exclude explicit people. Therefore, the problem of non-joinder within the modification didn’t maintain any weight until the get together was indispensable below Order 1 Rule 10, CPC.
“…plaintiff is the grasp of the lis and it’s for him to see as to whom he needs to sue or proceed in opposition to and the defendant can not resolve it on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the discretion to decide on the events to be impleaded in a go well with. The defendant can not compel the plaintiff to incorporate or exclude explicit people.”
Title: All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur & Anr. v Dr. Mahendra Kumar Garg, and different related petitions
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 203
In pleas by retired docs “re-employed” by AIIMS Jodhpur in opposition to imposition “Pay minus pension” rule 5 years after their appointment orders had been issued with out such situation, the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket slammed the hospital for being ignorant in regards to the regulation relevant upon its workers.
The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that the statutory provisions governing the sector of “re-employed” individuals couldn’t be excluded merely due to an omission on a part of the employer in clarifying the identical within the commercial discover or appointment order.
Moreover, the Court docket perused All India Institute of Medical Sciences Laws, 1999 (“1999 Laws”) and opined that Regulation 33 indicated that if a retired particular person was employed at AIIMS, he/she needed to be handled as a re-employed particular person. Additional, the Court docket opined that after it was decided that the petitioners had been re-employed, 1986 Orders clearly required utility of the rule “pay minus pension”.
On the similar time, the Court docket opined that the lackadaisical and ignorant angle of AIIMS had led to this controversy. Therefore, it was not honest to hunt retrospective restoration of the quantity already paid to the docs, at this belated stage for no fault on theirs.
Title: Mohammad Anwar v the Chairman, Rajashtan NEET Ayush, and Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 204
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket granted aid to a scholar whose provisional admission in Rajashtan Unani Medical Faculty, Jaipur, was cancelled after he couldn’t submit authentic mark-sheets of clearing Biology from the Rajasthan State Open Faculty. It was dominated that if the candidate had met substantive thresholds, strict compliance with technical formalities undermined the thing of the admission scheme.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain held that clauses 23 and 31 of the Nationwide Council For Indian System of Drugs (NCISM) needed to be interpreted utilizing the ideas of “Ejusdem Generis” and “Noscitur a Sociis” to imply that whereas closing approval of admission couldn’t be granted with out authentic paperwork, it didn’t mandate outright cancellation of a provisional admission if the failure to conform was because of causes past candidate’s management.
Title: Shekharchand Sacheti & Anr. v S.M.F.G. India House Finance Firm Restricted & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 205
Rajasthan Excessive Court docket dominated that because the respondent was already conscious of and was not taken abruptly relating to petitioner’s invocation of arbitration clause, their plea that the appliance for appointment of arbitrator was not maintainable since no discover was served below Part 21 of the A&C Act 1996, lacked advantage.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand additionally reiterated the precept laid down within the case of M.D. Frozen Meals Exports Personal Restricted & others v. Hero Fincorp Restricted that the SARFAESI Proceedings had been within the nature of enforcement whereas arbitration was an adjudicatory proceedings. Therefore, each might proceed parallel.
Title: Hdfc Financial institution Restricted v Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6676/2025)
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 206
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket (Jaipur Bench) of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, lately, handed an interim order in a writ petition filed by HDFC financial institution. Within the interim order, the court docket stayed the impact and operation of a requirement discover issued by the Nagar Parishad Jhunjhunu to HDFC Financial institution.
Whereas contemplating the contentions raised by the petitioner, the court docket ordered that the operation and impact of the impugned discover by the Municipal company be stayed till the subsequent date of listening to. The bench additionally clarified that the interim order would come into impact solely after the service of discover upon the respondents.
Title: Mohammad Abid & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 207
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket lately famous that Part 170 of the BNSS conferred “restricted preventive jurisdiction” to the Govt Justice of the Peace and that such preventive motion was not a device for punitive motion or an alternative choice to legal process.
Justice Farjand Ali criticised the motion of an Govt Justice of the Peace in detaining individuals and granting them bail on an extra-statutory situation of manufacturing a personality certificates. The court docket famous that as a substitute of working as a Justice of the Peace below a Constitutional democracy, the Govt Justice of the Peace had acted like a “Raja” shelling out justice at whim.
“It’s evident that the Govt Justice of the Peace, as a substitute of appearing in accordance with the restricted preventive jurisdiction vested in him below B.N.S.S., has arrogated to himself an authority akin to that of a sovereign — working not as a Justice of the Peace below a constitutional democracy, however extra as a Raja shelling out justice at whim. The excellence between private discretion and rule of regulation lies on the very basis of our authorized system, and the impugned conduct strikes at that very basis”.
Title: Ramswaroop v Moolchand & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 208
Rajasthan Excessive Court docket has dominated that Appellate Hire Tribunal shouldn’t be anticipated to order judgment for an indefinite interval, particularly when the arguments in a matter earlier than it had been heard and concluded months in the past.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noticed that as per Part 19(8) of the Rajasthan Hire Management Act, 2001, the Tribunal shall dispose the attraction inside a interval of 100 and eighty days from the date of service of discover of attraction on the respondents.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court docket case of Balaji Baliram Mupade & Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra & Ors. during which the Apex Court docket thought of it crucial that judicial self-discipline required promptness in supply of judgments. Equally, in one other case of Anil Rai v State of Bihar, it was held that after the issues had been reserved for pronouncement of order, the identical needs to be carried out inside an inexpensive time schedule.
Title: Shankar Lal v Jugal Kishore & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 209
Whereas relying upon the ruling of the division bench within the case of Ramesh Kumar v Chandu Lal & One other, Rajasthan Excessive Court docket reiterated that Part 15 of the Rajasthan Hire Management Act, 2001 (“the Act”) was not obligatory however listing in nature.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was listening to a petition difficult the order of the Hire Tribunal that rejected the petitioner’s utility to tackle document the affidavit submitted by him on the bottom that as per Part 15, these needed to be submitted together with the reply.
Title: State of Rajasthan v Sharafat & Anr, and different related matter
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 210
Whereas setting apart loss of life penalty and acquitting the appellants, accused for murdering a household of 6, together with 4 kids, Rajasthan Excessive Court docket held that the significance of last-seen-together proof couldn’t be “over-emphasized” in a legal trial as this by itself shouldn’t be enough to document conviction of an accused.
The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma opined that earlier than the onus shifted on the accused by operation of Part 106 of the Indian Proof Act, it should be held that the prosecution had established a prima facie case in opposition to the accused.
Reference was made to the Apex Court docket case of Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju v State during which it was held that if an individual was final seen with the deceased, he should provide rationalization about how he parted firm, and if he failed burden below Part 106 was not discharged. Nonetheless, this didn’t imply that part 106 shifted the burden of proof of a legal trial on the accused. Such burden at all times rested on the prosecution.
Title: Bhawani Pratap Singh v State of Rajasthan
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 211
Whereas denying common bail to an NDPS accused, Rajasthan Excessive Court docket granted a short lived bail of 60 days to deal with his spouse who was pregnant, because of ship a child in just a few days, and had nobody else to deal with her and supply medical help.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that despite the fact that such floor in itself was not enough to warrant common bail, momentary bail could possibly be granted as a balanced strategy to accommodate respectable private issues of the accused, whereas upholding authorized sanctity and custodial course of.
Title: Hari Ram & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 212
Dismissing a bunch of petitions filed by the alleged encroachers of the catchment space of the Ummed Sagar Dam in opposition to State’s motion of dispossession, the bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal on the Rajasthan Excessive Court docket held that no possession over land forming a part of water physique could possibly be regularized.
After listening to the contentions, the Court docket accepted the arguments put forth on behalf of the State, and highlighted that the land in query was owned by the P.H.E.D. Division and fashioned a part of the catchment space of the Ummed Sagar Dam.
Rajasthan High Court Upholds 25% Domicile Reservation In National Law University Jodhpur
Title: Anindita Biswas v Nationwide Legislation College, Jodhpur & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 213
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket upheld the constitutional validity of 25% domicile-based reservation at Nationwide Legislation College, Jodhpur (“NLUJ”), ruling that such reservation didn’t violate Article 14 because the classification was affordable, non-arbitrary and maintained a rational nexus with the thing of advancing regional instructional growth.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali took observe of many different NLUs which have launched domicile-based reservation based mostly on their respective states, and opined that the state had merely aligned NLUJ with the normative construction adopted by its sister NLUs.
Reference was additionally made to the Supreme Court docket case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, whereby the Apex Court docket acknowledged the permissibility of domicile-based preferences in admissions to greater instructional establishments significantly when the establishments had been established and maintained by a State.
When Can An Order Passed U/S 47 CPC Be Treated As A Decree? Rajasthan High Court Explains
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket has noticed that orders handed by courts below Part 47 of the CPC learn with Order XXI Guidelines 58, 97, and 99 of the CPC, can be handled as decrees and are appealable below Part 96 CPC.
Justice Munnuri Laxman famous that Part 47 handled each— orders that may be handled as decrees and people that can’t be handled as decrees. The court docket added that these orders which had been handed with regards to Rule 58, 97, and 99 can be thought of as decrees as the identical has been particularly offered below Rule 58(4) and Rule 103 of Order XXI.
The court docket famous that each one different orders handed below Part 47 [except those under Rule 58,97, and 99] couldn’t be handled as a decree. The court docket added that since an attraction would lie solely from a decree handed by the court docket as per Part 96, the orders handed below Part 47 learn with Rule 58,97 and, 99 had been appealable orders and all different orders handed below Part 47 wouldn’t be appealable orders.
Title: X v Y
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 214
Title: Banarsi Das Mittal v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 215
Upholding the constitutional validity of the Proviso 3 to Rule 16(2) (“the Provision”) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Guidelines, 2017 (“2017 Guidelines”) Rajasthan Excessive Court docket dominated that after the rule was held to be constitutionally and statutorily legitimate, any motion by the State in furtherance thereof couldn’t be faulted merely on grounds of hardship or inconvenience.
The Provision offered for extension of the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued topic to cost of a penalty on the charge of 10% of the annual useless lease for each month for such prolonged interval from the date of issuance of LOI.
The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali additionally noticed that mining exercise had important environmental and financial implications, and delays in securing obligatory clearances, even when procedurally cumbersome, couldn’t indefinitely stall the method. “Within the broader public curiosity, the legislature is entitled to put the onus on the applicant to conform expeditiously with statutory conditions”.
Title: Ankit Bansal v Union of India
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 216
Rajasthan Excessive Court docket denied bail to Ankit Bansal, accused in a Rs. 704 Crore GST evasion rip-off, on account of his concealment of previous legal antecedents, try to abscond from custody utilizing his affect and energy, and the magnitude of the siphoned quantity.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma rejected the argument of parity on account of the co-accused Mr. Rajesh Goyal being launched on bail, ruling that whereas making use of the precept of parity, conduct and function of the accused needed to be targeted upon.
Rejecting the argument of parity with the co-accused who had been granted bail, the Court docket particularly referred to the “extraordinary circumstances” within the applicant’s case.
“there are clear and manifest antecedents in opposition to the petitioner (which have been suppressed by the petitioner) and the magnitude of allegations in opposition to him is kind of greater, which is crossing greater than 700 Crores. Since through the pendency of instantaneous bail utility, the accused-petitioner has tried to abscond, which evidently includes extraordinary circumstances…Therefore, within the mild of the above risk of his absconding and influencing the witnesses cannot be dominated out.”
Title: Mushtaq Ali v State of Rajasthan
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 217
Whereas acquitting a police constable charged below Part 223 (IPC) following absconsion of two under-trial prisons from his guard, Rajasthan Excessive Court docket held that when a police officer was tasked with twin and simultaneous duties like guarding in addition to attending wi-fi operations, expectations of flawless supervision should be weighed in opposition to sensible limitations of manpower and infrastructure.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali additional held that the first requirement of Part 223 i.e. legal negligence, was fulfilled on gross and culpable failure to train the diploma of care which an ordinarily prudent and affordable particular person would train in related circumstances. Not each error in judgment, lapse, or inadvertence constituted legal negligence.
Title: Smt. Kailash Kanwar Rathore & Ors. v State of Rajasthan
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 218
Rajasthan Excessive Court docket highlighted the rising concern of Indian companies and company entities owing to unwarranted freezing of financial institution accounts by the investigating authorities in a mechanical method implicating important monetary hardships on the involved events.
The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg opined that such actions had been steadily predicated merely on allegations or suspicion of tainted funds being credited into the accounts of harmless enterprise entities or people that severely impaired operational functioning of the enterprise.
Title: X v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 219
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket dismissed a petition filed by a mom looking for termination of being pregnant of her minor daughter (17 years, 5 months previous) in mild of the daughter’s unwillingness to abort the being pregnant, upholding the fitting of a pregnant minor sufferer to retain her being pregnant.
Highlighting that the minor sufferer had enough stage of understanding in regards to the penalties of her actions, the bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali noticed that pregnant lady had the autonomy over her physique and it was solely she who had the fitting to decide on whether or not to terminate the being pregnant or not.
Reference was made to the Supreme Court docket case of Suchita Srivastava & Anr. Vs. Chandigarh Administration whereby it was held that proper to make reproductive selections was a aspect of Artwork. 21, and the consent of the pregnant girls within the matter of such selections was paramount. No entity, even the state, might communicate on behalf of the pregnant particular person and usurp her consent.
Title: Mahir Bishnoi v Nationwide Testing Company & Anr.
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 220
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket has granted aid to an IIT-JEE aspirant who was barred by the Nationwide Testing Company from giving the examination for educational classes 2025-26 and 2026-27 after he was allegedly discovered utilizing unfair means and was wanting into the reply sheet of a fellow candidate sitting proper adjoining to him.
Whereas highlighting that such a stigmatising penalty couldn’t have been inflicted with out offering a possibility of listening to, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that the inflicted penalty would definitely spoil the petitioner’s profession and create an obstacle on his technique to getting public employment.
Title: Ashutosh Bajoria v Rajesh Kumar Sharma (S.B. Felony Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 12/2023)
Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 221
The Rajasthan Excessive Court docket has allowed a person, arrested in a PMLA case, to journey to Dubai and Singapore for enterprise conferences— reiterating that the expression ‘private liberty’ below Article 21 of the Structure contains the fitting to go overseas.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred to the Supreme Court docket’s choice in Smt. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India (1978) the place it was held that “the expression ‘private liberty’ below Article 21 of the Structure of India has a wider amplitude, which incorporates proper to go overseas. An individual can’t be disadvantaged to this proper besides in accordance with the process prescribed by the regulation”.
Title: Manisha Mina v State of Rajasthan & Others
Granting interim aid to a scholar affected by 100% listening to impairment, Rajasthan Excessive Court docket directed the State to offer two interpreters to the petitioner, one for helping her in preparation of theoretical examines, and one other for help in preparation in addition to on the time of the sensible exams.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand additional directed the State to offer one further hour and one extra copy to the petitioner throughout theoretical and sensible examinations.
Title: Umakant Sharma v Om Prakash Sharma
Rajasthan Excessive Court docket held that the presiding officers within the Income Courts who had been posted from the Administrative Companies didn’t possess any authorized background neither did they endure any formal authorized coaching. Therefore, on many events, it was observed that they commit procedural errors whereas deciding fits and appeals with out following obligatory CPC provisions.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that it was excessive and proper time to determine an “Administrative Judicial Academy” for such officers of Administrative Companies whereby they are often imparted each pre-service and in-service coaching. The Court docket held that this want was uncared for for a very long time by the Authorities of Rajasthan, resulting in disastrous outcomes.
The Court docket laid down following steps for the State:
- Set up an Administrative Judicial Academy to arrange obligatory coaching program for newly appointed and in-service administrative officers.
- Conduct analysis on judicial reforms for administration and entry to justice.
- Promote judicial innovation, by seminars, colloquium, and workshops.
- Develop a complete curriculum that blends concept with sensible coaching of procedural legal guidelines.
- Sensitize the officers to expedite disposal of issues with out granting pointless adjournments.
Title: In Re: Grievance of Ladies staying at Balika Grah and Care Leavers combating for his or her Id and Rights after leaving Shelter Properties
Being attentive to letter obtained from the kids residing at Balika Grah, Alwar, relating to extreme challenges being confronted by them owing to non-receipt of grant in assist because of inaction by the State, Rajasthan Excessive Court docket registered a suo-moto PIL opining that transitioning from institutional care to unbiased residing was a weak part for each child who had spent his/her childhood in shelter properties.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dominated that there was a necessity for higher funding, consciousness and accountability to make sure that each little one in a shelter residence who transitioned to maturity and was shifting out of the institutional care (“Care Leavers”) obtained strong, complete and sustained help within the type of schooling, housing, employment and emotional well-being.
Moreover, the Court docket laid down the sure steps to be taken by the Centre in addition to the State Authorities by enacting a regulation, framing insurance policies and so on. at their very own stage, for well-being of the Care Leavers.
