Pending Criminal Writ Petitions that were registered under another label must be re-registered within two weeks. A three-judge Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court has held that writ petitions arising from criminal matters are to be registered as criminal writ petitions under Rule 315(1)(h) of the High Court Rules, and has declared a July 2026 Division Bench direction to the contrary per incuriam.
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has declared a Division Bench direction on Criminal Writ Petitions per incuriam, holding that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution concerning a criminal matter or proceeding must be registered separately as a criminal writ petition and placed before the appropriate Bench under Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, with the Registry to re-register pending cases within two weeks [Ravi Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.].
Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Anuroop Singhi sat as the Full Bench and delivered the judgment on November 2, 2026, on a reference made by Justice Anand Sharma. Chief Justice Agrawal wrote the opinion.
What the Registry must now do
The Registry has been told to entertain, register and process writ petitions arising out of criminal matters under the nomenclature of “Criminal Writ Petition”. For cases already pending, the Court ordered:
“In respect to the criminal writ petitions concerning criminal matters that are pending as on the date of this judgment but have been registered under a different nomenclature, the Registry shall re-register the same as ‘Criminal Writ Petition’ and shall place the writ petition before the appropriate Bench having the roster. Such a re-registration and re-classification will be done within a period of two weeks from today and it will be done expeditiously so that it may not affect the hearing of those writ petitions.”
Writ petitions instituted after the judgment that arise out of criminal matters and fall within Rule 315(1)(h) are to be categorised as criminal writ petitions and listed as per the roster. The Registrar (Judicial) has been asked to issue administrative instructions for uniform implementation.
A rule and a direction that did not meet
The reference arose while Justice Anand Sharma was hearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16049 of 2026. He found a conflict between Rule 315(1)(h) and a direction issued on July 7, 2026 by a Division Bench in Jiya & Others v. The Government of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 128 of 2018). That Bench, headed by then Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and including Justice Maneesh Sharma, had held that the Constitution does not recognise a separate category called a “criminal writ petition” and had directed that such cases be registered only as writ petitions.
Five questions were referred to a larger Bench. They included whether a petition under Article 226 arising out of a criminal matter can be separately registered as an S.B. Criminal Writ Petition, whether the nomenclature is merely a matter of Registry classification, and whether Rule 315(1)(h) can be rendered inoperative by a judicial direction without the Rule being held ultra vires or unconstitutional.
The Full Bench answered the main question in these words:
“That the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning criminal matter or proceeding is separately registered as S.B. Criminal Writ Petition for the purposes of registration, classification and shall be placed before the appropriate Bench in accordance with Rule 315(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules.”
Per incuriam, and why
On the Court’s reading, the earlier direction was issued without the Rule being considered at all:
“Thus, to the extent that the aforesaid decision in Jiya (supra) failed to consider or give effect to the statutory mandate embodied in Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, its ratio, insofar as it prohibits criminal-side registration of such writ applications, is held to be per incuriam, having been rendered in ignorance of, or without due consideration of, a relevant statutory provision.”
The Bench described the Jiya direction as “in the nature of an opinion-based direction, rather than a proposition of law founded upon a comprehensive consideration of the governing statutory framework”. On the doctrine of per incuriam it relied on Ram Kishan Fauji, Nagpur Cable Operators’ Association, N. Prakash v. Manoj Kumar and State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.
A label, not a new jurisdiction
The Full Bench was equally clear that the label creates no separate kind of writ power:
“The classification of a petition as a ‘Criminal Writ Petition’ does not create an independent constitutional jurisdiction; it identifies the procedural character of a writ proceeding arising from a criminal matter and must be understood in conjunction with the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 and the applicable High Court Rules.”
The Court also invoked the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, observing that procedural classification “must facilitate, rather than obstruct, the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.”
Only from here on
To protect decided cases, the Bench ruled:
“The declaration of law made herein shall operate prospectively from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. All judgments, final orders and proceedings already concluded prior to the date of this judgment shall remain undisturbed and shall not be reopened or rendered invalid merely by reason of the present determination.”
The Court recorded its appreciation for the assistance of Advocate General Rajendra Prasad and members of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur Bench, along with several senior advocates.
Why the judgment matters
Case classification decides which roster Bench hears a matter, so the July 2026 direction had a direct effect on how criminal-side writs such as challenges to FIRs, investigations and detention were listed across the High Court. The Full Bench has restored the long-standing practice under Rule 315(1)(h) and reaffirmed a basic principle of judicial discipline: a binding statutory rule cannot be set aside by a judicial direction that never considered it, unless the rule itself is struck down.
By making the ruling prospective and ordering re-registration within two weeks, the Court has also ensured that litigants whose cases were already decided, or are pending under the wrong label, are not prejudiced by the change.
Case Title: Ravi Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Reference No. 2/2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16049/2026; 2026:RJ-JP:44204-DB]
Bench: Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sameer Jain and Justice Anuroop Singhi (Full Bench), Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Judgment Reserved: October 29, 2026
Date of Judgment: November 2, 2026
For the Petitioner: Advocates Nitin Jain, Kriti Kalawatia, Vaibhav Pareek, Rajeev Bhushan Bansal and others
For the State: Advocate General Rajendra Prasad, assisted by Sheetanshu Sharma and Dhriti Laddha; GA cum AAG Rajesh Choudhary