Important Judgments of Rajasthan High Court (2025) - Legal Bites Year Update

Legal Bites presents a concise roundup of important judgments delivered by the Rajasthan High Court in 2025, reflecting the Court’s sensitive and rights-oriented approach to evolving social and administrative challenges. From live-in relationship protection and a girl child’s right to education to service jurisprudence on acquittal and salary, humane limits on transfers affecting a daughter’s board exams, and parental property rights against adult children, these decisions reaffirm constitutional values of dignity, liberty, and fairness while addressing contemporary realities through principled judicial reasoning.

Important Judgments of Rajasthan High Court (2025)
Legal Bites Year Update

1) Live-In Relationship Protection Needs Legislative Clarity

The Rajasthan High Court in Reena v. State of Rajasthan (2025), highlighted the legal vacuum surrounding live-in relationships while dealing with pleas by couples seeking police protection from familial and societal threats. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand reiterated that consensual live-in relationships are not per se illegal and fall within the ambit of personal liberty under Article 21, but noted that protection claims become contentious where one or both partners are already married.

Observing conflicting High Court rulings across the country, the Court stressed the urgent need for legislative clarity, referred the core legal issue to a larger bench, and suggested interim measures such as registration of live-in relationships and appointment of nodal officers to ensure accountability and protection, particularly for women and children.

2) Right to Education Applies Equally to All Girls

The Rajasthan High Court, in Victim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2025), emphatically reaffirmed that a minor girl residing in a government shelter home cannot be denied her fundamental right to education, regardless of her vulnerable circumstances. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the State is constitutionally bound under Article 21A and the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, to ensure free schooling for every child, particularly institutionalised and disadvantaged girls.

Allowing the minor, who had earlier given birth and expressed a desire to study, to be admitted to a government school, the Court directed the State to bear all educational expenses and mandated continuous monitoring by child protection authorities, underscoring that rehabilitation through education is central to dignity, empowerment, and child-centric justice.

3) Acquitted Employee Entitled to Salary for Custody Period

The Rajasthan High Court, in Harbajan Singh v. Superintendent of Police, Ajmer (2025), held that a government employee who was arrested, kept in judicial custody, and later acquitted of all charges cannot be denied salary for the period of detention. The Court ruled that custody is an involuntary absence and penalising an employee financially after acquittal amounts to unfair double punishment.

Rejecting a rigid application of the “no work, no pay” principle, the Court relied on Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and directed payment of full salary and allowances for the entire suspension period, including custody, subject to adjustment of subsistence allowance, reinforcing equity and fairness in service jurisprudence.

4) Right to Education Prevails Over Transfer Exigency

The Rajasthan High Court, in Pushkar Naraian Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. (2025), set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order and quashed the transfer of a BSNL Sub-Divisional Engineer from Jaipur to Karnataka, holding that administrative transfers must not disrupt a daughter’s crucial Class XII board examinations. Emphasising Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court ruled that the right to life with dignity includes safeguarding a daughter’s education and family welfare, particularly where transfer policies themselves recognise retention on educational grounds.

5) Adult Son Has No Right to Stay in Father’s Self-Acquired Property

The Rajasthan High Court in Ritesh Khatri v. Shyam Sundar Khatri (2025), reaffirmed that an adult, married son has no legal right to reside in his father’s self-acquired property and can be evicted once permissive occupation is withdrawn. The Court held that residence granted out of parental love and affection does not create any ownership, coparcenary, or possessory right, and such permission can be revoked at any time.

Rejecting the son’s baseless claim that the house was HUF property, the Court upheld eviction through a suit for mandatory injunction and imposed ₹1 lakh costs for harassing the father through prolonged litigation, emphasising that courts must not protect gratuitous occupation of parental property.