State Focus 1 of 8
State Focus Rajasthan Judiciary Polity & Governance

Rajasthan High Court Full Bench restores separate registration of criminal writ petitions

A Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has held that writ petitions under Article 226 that arise out of criminal matters must again be registered separately as Criminal Writ Petitions.
Chief Justice Sanjay K Agrawal, Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Anuroop Singhi decided a reference in Ravi Kumar v State of Rajasthan, sent up by Justice Anand Sharma.
The Bench relied on Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, which requires such registration, and treated it as mandatory.
It held that an earlier Division Bench decision of July 2026, known as Jiya, was per incuriam on this point because it did not consider that Rule.
The classification is a registry matter that decides which bench hears the case, the Full Bench said; it does not create a separate constitutional jurisdiction.
The Registry must re-register pending petitions under the correct head within two weeks, and judgments passed before 2 November 2026 cannot be reopened only because a petition carried a different name.

Case: Ravi Kumar v State of Rajasthan Rule relied on: Rule 315(1)(h), Rajasthan High Court Rules Time to re-register pending petitions: Two weeks
Why it matters for exams: The durable facts are Article 226 of the Constitution, Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, and the doctrine of per incuriam, under which a decision given without considering a binding rule loses authority.
Kerala PSCUPSC
2 November 2026 Source: Bar and Bench

In plain words

per incuriam per incuriam — A ruling given in ignorance of a binding law or rule, and so not a binding precedent.

On a phone, swipe left or right to move between stories.