Rajasthan High Court's Landmark September Rulings: From Probing 'Dummy Schools' to Upholding Dignity in Death

JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – September 2025 proved to be a momentous month for the Rajasthan High Court, which delivered a series of impactful judgments addressing deep-seated societal issues, clarifying complex points of law, and reinforcing constitutional mandates. The court's pronouncements spanned a wide spectrum, from ordering a state-wide probe into the "dummy school" menace fueling the coaching industry to directing the government to formulate policies ensuring dignified, caste-neutral last rites for all citizens.

The month's key rulings also brought significant clarity to service jurisprudence, particularly on the application of reservation for ex-servicemen and the rules governing age relaxation in public employment. These decisions, among others, underscore the judiciary's proactive role in tackling systemic challenges and upholding fundamental rights.

Upholding Constitutional Values: Dignity in Life and Beyond

In a powerful affirmation of constitutional fraternity and the right to dignity, the High Court addressed the discriminatory practice of segregating cremation grounds based on caste. In Kanchan Patil (Mirasi) Samaj v State of Rajasthan , a division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta declared the practice "antithetical to the constitutional vision of equality, fraternity, and dignity."

The bench observed that the demarcation of public lands for last rites based on community or caste hampers the "dignity of an individual" even after death. It held that such exclusion is proscribed by the Constitution and "cannot be allowed to extend beyond death." The court urged the State to formulate a uniform policy for public places designated for post-death rituals, ensuring they are accessible to all citizens irrespective of their background.

“...public lands earmarked for cremation or burial cannot be segregated or monopolized by any community. Any such practice of exclusion or reservation of common land for the benefit of a particular caste, creed, or community is antithetical to the constitutional vision of equality, fraternity, and dignity,” the Court held.

In a separate matter concerning the rights of elected representatives, the court in Ramswaroop Bhati v State of Rajasthan & Ors. held that suspending a public representative on mere suspicion of corruption, without substantive proof, is detrimental to the electorate. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, while quashing the suspension of a Municipal Board Chairman, noted that such actions undermine the democratic process and the trust placed by voters in their chosen leaders.

Systemic Reforms in Education and Governance

One of the most significant interventions this month came in LBS Convent School v CBSE , where the High Court took on the widespread issue of "dummy schools." These institutions allegedly manipulate attendance records to allow students to skip regular classes and attend full-time coaching for competitive exams like NEET and JEE.

Terming the practice a "blight on the education system," Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the State and all educational boards to constitute Special Investigating Teams (SITs) to conduct surprise inspections of schools and coaching centers. The court mandated strict action against all stakeholders if students are found absent from school but present in coaching centers during school hours.

"The State of Rajasthan and all the Boards are directed to constitute Special Investigating Teams (SITs) to carry out sudden and random inspections of all the schools and the coaching centres and in case, the students are found absent in such schools and simultaneously, they found present in the coaching centres, during the school hours, then appropriate strict action be taken against all the stakeholders, including the schools and the coaching centres in accordance with law," directed Justice Dhand.

Further emphasizing the spirit of the Right to Education, the court in Master Daivik Rangwani v State of Rajasthan & Ors. ruled that a child cannot be denied admission under the RTE Act merely because their Aadhaar card lacks a residency ward number. Justice Dhand asserted that the fundamental right under Article 21-A cannot be curtailed on procedural technicalities, directing the authorities to admit the child.

Key Pronouncements in Service and Administrative Law

The High Court delivered several crucial judgments clarifying long-standing issues in service law. In Narendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. , Justice Sameer Jain held that reservation for ex-servicemen in public employment is a one-time benefit to facilitate their re-entry into civilian life and not a "perpetual device for career progression." The court rejected a plea from an ex-serviceman, already employed as a Village Development Officer under the reserved quota, who sought appointment to another post using the same benefit.

In another significant ruling, State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Ali Taqi & Ors. , a division bench provided a definitive legal framework on the application of cumulative age relaxation in recruitment. The Court held that unless expressly stipulated in the rules or the advertisement, different categories of age relaxation cannot be clubbed together. The bench summarized the legal position: 1. If rules provide for cumulative relaxation, it must be respected. 2. If rules prescribe non-cumulative relaxation, the rules prevail. 3. If both rules and the advertisement are silent, the default position is non-cumulative relaxation.

The court emphasized that the "rules of the game cannot be changed midway," reinforcing the sanctity of the recruitment process.

Notable Rulings in Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence

The court also passed several orders with far-reaching implications for civil and criminal practice.

• No Social Media for 3 Years: In a unique bail condition reflecting modern-day challenges, the court in Akash v State of Rajasthan granted bail to a 19-year-old accused of circulating explicit content but barred him from using any social media platform for three years.
• Juvenility Standard: Clarifying the standard of proof for juvenility claims in X v State of Rajasthan & Ors. , the court held that the yardstick is not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Justice Sandeep Shah observed that in borderline cases, courts should lean in favor of the accused, and documentary evidence under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, should be considered unless proven fabricated.
• Issue-Wise Findings Mandatory: In Darogi & Ors. v Chetram & Ors. , the court set aside a trial court's judgment for failing to record separate findings on each framed issue, deeming it a violation of mandatory provisions under Order XX Rule 5 and Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC.
• Executing Court's Duty: Highlighting that a judicial decree is not a "mere showpiece," Justice Farjand Ali in Smt. Pooja v Mahendra Singh & Ors. stated that an executing court cannot deny relief on technicalities and must ensure the decree-holder receives the substantive benefit.

The breadth and depth of the judgments delivered by the Rajasthan High Court in September 2025 illustrate a judiciary deeply engaged with both the granular details of legal procedure and the broader pursuit of constitutional justice and systemic reform.