2 November 2026
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
In plain words
per incuriam per incuriam — A ruling given in ignorance of a binding law or rule, and so not a binding precedent.
2 November 2026
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a prisoner who did not avail or apply for regular or periodic parole is not disqualified from being granted permanent parole.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain decided Anil v State of Rajasthan, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 468.
The case turned on Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, and its second proviso, which says such a prisoner is not disqualified for that reason.
The authorities had rejected the prisoner's application for permanent parole because he had taken only one of the three regular paroles due to him.
The Court called that order absolutely unjustified, set it aside, and directed the jail authorities to release him on permanent parole.
It followed an earlier Division Bench ruling in Suraj Giri v State of Rajasthan to the same effect.
Rules interpreted:
Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021
Provision:
Rule 10 and its second proviso
Citation:
2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 468
Why it matters for exams: The durable facts are the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, Rule 10 on permanent parole and its second proviso, and the distinction between regular or periodic parole and permanent parole.
Kerala PSCUPSC
3 November 2026
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation against the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur.
The Division Bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma decided Vijay Singh Sheron v State of Rajasthan, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 474.
The Bench found the petition was filed to settle personal scores, and that the petitioner had suppressed the disclosures of pending and decided criminal, civil and revenue cases that Rule 385-F(7) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 makes mandatory for a public interest litigant.
On that ground the petitioner was held disentitled to raise the dispute as a public interest litigation.
Costs of Rs 1 lakh were imposed, payable to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
A separate challenge was left open for an appropriate case: whether the Chancellor may appoint the Vice Chancellor at all. That power comes from Section 11(1) of the 2012 Act governing the Jodhpur university, whose full name is the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice.
Costs imposed:
Rs 1 lakh
Payable to:
Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority
Citation:
2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 474
Why it matters for exams: The durable facts are Rule 385-F(7) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 on mandatory disclosure by a public interest litigant, the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur Act, 2012, and the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
PIL Public Interest Litigation — A petition brought for a public cause rather than a personal grievance.
3 November 2026
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition against a goods and services tax confiscation order, holding that Article 226 cannot be used to bypass the appeal the tax law itself provides.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain decided Smt. Usha v Union of India and others.
The petitioner had challenged a confiscation order in FORM GST MOV-11 and a demand for a bank guarantee without first using the appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Bench described the tax law as a self contained code with its own grievance mechanism, and said writ jurisdiction must not become a routine substitute for a statutory appeal, least of all in revenue matters.
A writ court cannot hold a roving inquiry or act as an appellate fact finding forum, it said; the Appellate Authority under Section 107 is equipped to weigh the disputed evidence about the nature of the oil, the bypassing of a toll and the multiple e-way bills.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Appeal provision:
Section 107, CGST/RGST Act, 2017
Order challenged:
FORM GST MOV-11 confiscation order
Case:
Smt. Usha v Union of India and others
Why it matters for exams: The durable facts are Section 107 of the Central and Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017, which creates the first appeal, FORM GST MOV-11 for confiscation, and the rule that Article 226 is not an alternative to an available statutory remedy.
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
GST Goods and Services Tax — The indirect tax levied in parallel by the Union and the States under the 2017 Acts.
30 October 2026
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the number of criminal cases against a person cannot by itself justify keeping him under continued police surveillance through a history sheet.
Justice Sunil Beniwal decided Naresh Prajapat v State of Rajasthan, on history sheets opened under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965.
The Court held that a conviction is not a precondition for opening a history sheet, and that acquittal, compromise or the absence of conviction does not automatically bar one either.
What the Rules require is that the competent authority have reasonable grounds to believe the person falls within a category the Rules prescribe, and that it apply reasoned discretion.
The authority must weigh the nature and recency of the cases, their outcomes, any later criminal involvement and the material it actually looked at.
The matter was remitted to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, to reconsider the history sheet against the petitioner, who had twelve cases with a single conviction about thirty years earlier, four negative final reports, three acquittals and two pending trials.
Rules relied on:
Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965
Case:
Naresh Prajapat v State of Rajasthan
Remitted to:
Superintendent of Police, Udaipur
Why it matters for exams: The durable facts are the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the history sheet as the instrument of continued police surveillance, and the rule that a conviction is neither necessary nor, by its absence, a bar.
Kerala PSCUPSC
4 November 2026
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation against a one way underpass at the Purani Chungi Junction on Ajmer Road in Jaipur.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain decided Gyanesh Kumar Sharma v State of Rajasthan and others.
The project is being executed by the Jaipur Development Authority on approvals given by its Public Works Committee.
The Bench held that a court must show restraint when a public interest litigation attacks a contractual or tender decision, and should step in only where the decision is arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, malafide or illegal.
Review under Article 226 looks at the legality and fairness of the decision making process, not at the merits of the choice made, the Court said, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Jagdish Mandal v State of Orissa.
Finding no material to show that the project was against the public interest, it held that a bona fide technical evaluation should not be interfered with and dismissed the petition.
Project:
One way underpass at Purani Chungi Junction, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
Executing authority:
Jaipur Development Authority
Precedent relied on:
Jagdish Mandal v State of Orissa
Why it matters for exams: The durable facts are the Jaipur Development Authority, the limits of judicial review under Article 226 over tender and contract decisions, and the Supreme Court's test in Jagdish Mandal v State of Orissa.
Kerala PSCUPSC
In plain words
JDA Jaipur Development Authority — The statutory urban development authority for the Jaipur region.
3 November 2026
The Rajasthan High Court has held that paying deficit stamp duty does not cure the non registration of a document that the law requires to be registered.
Justice Sameer Jain decided Radheshyam Gupta v Ankur Khandelwal and others, with a connected petition, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 467.
Non registration of a compulsorily registrable document was described as a fatal and incurable defect, and curing the stamp defect does not revive the document.
The proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 lets an unregistered document be received for a limited collateral purpose if it is duly stamped. The Court held that using the deed to claim exclusive title and possession was the core dispute, not a collateral purpose, and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Paul Rubber Industries.
Asking the civil court to impound a document already held inadmissible was called a futile and dilatory tactic; the party could deposit the deficit duty independently under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 if it genuinely wished to cure the defect.
The civil court's orders were upheld and both petitions were dismissed.
Provision:
Proviso to Section 49, Registration Act, 1908
State law on stamp duty:
Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998
Citation:
2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 467
Why it matters for exams: The durable facts are Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and its proviso on collateral purposes, the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, and the rule that non registration of a compulsorily registrable document is an incurable defect.
Kerala PSCUPSC
Background
The public interest litigation the Rajasthan High Court has just dismissed was about the Vice Chancellor of a specialised state university, so the institution is worth knowing.
Its full name is the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Jodhpur, written in short as SPUP, Jodhpur.
It is a Rajasthan state university devoted to policing, security and criminal justice studies, with its campus at Jodhpur.
Its Chancellor is the Governor of Rajasthan, at present Haribhau Kishanrao Bagade, who holds that office by virtue of being Governor.
The university's own Act of 2012 gives the Chancellor the power to appoint the Vice Chancellor. That is the provision whose validity the High Court left open for a later case.
Dr Kiran Bedi was chief guest at the university's first Foundation Day.
Location:
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
Chancellor:
Governor of Rajasthan, Haribhau Kishanrao Bagade
Short form:
SPUP, Jodhpur
Why it matters for exams: The durable facts are the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice at Jodhpur, the Governor of Rajasthan as its Chancellor, and the Chancellor's power under the 2012 Act to appoint the Vice Chancellor.
Kerala PSCUPSC