Rajasthan HC Full Bench Orders Criminal-Matter Writs Registered As Criminal Writ Petitions, Declares Jiya Direction Per Incuriam

A Single Judge, Anand Sharma, J., referred questions concerning the registration and classification of writ petitions arising from criminal matters after identifying a conflict between Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 and a Division Bench order in Jiya & Others v. Government of Rajasthan & Others.

The Jiya order directed the Registry not to register cases as “Criminal Writ Petitions” and to treat the petition before it as a “Civil Writ Petition”.

Rule 315(1)(h), however, provides for applications under Article 226 “in a criminal matter” to be registered and numbered as criminal miscellaneous cases. The reference arose in Ravi Kumar’s pending writ petition.

Rule 315(1)(h) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 expressly provides that an application under Article 226 in a criminal matter is to be registered and numbered as a criminal miscellaneous case; Rule 123(1) gives precedence to Part III where it conflicts with rules in other Parts.

Rule 54 vests allocation of judicial work in the Chief Justice, while roster allocation does not itself repeal or invalidate a procedural rule [State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1].

Under Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, (2017) 5 SCC 533, the character of a proceeding depends on the right asserted and relief sought; criminal proceedings ordinarily include proceedings that may result in a sentence or preventive orders.

A decision rendered without due regard to a governing statutory provision may be per incuriam [State of U.P. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 139].

The “Criminal Writ Petition” designation does not create a distinct constitutional jurisdiction, but the classification may affect registration and roster placement under the Rules.

The Full Bench held that Rule 315(1)(h) expressly covers Article 226 applications in criminal matters and mandates their registration within the criminal-side procedural framework; treating such matters as civil writ petitions would deny effect to that provision.

The constitutional source remains Article 226, but the Registry classification is not necessarily a merely clerical matter because it may determine placement before the appropriate roster Bench.

The Court distinguished roster allocation from rule-making and concluded that a judicial direction cannot silently displace an operative rule.

It therefore held the Jiya direction per incuriam to the extent that it barred criminal-side registration contrary to Rule 315(1)(h).

The Jiya direction was held per incuriam insofar as it prohibited such registration.

The declaration operates prospectively; concluded matters remain undisturbed, while pending criminal-matter writ petitions registered under another nomenclature are to be re-registered and reclassified within two weeks.

The Registry was directed to implement the ruling and issue necessary administrative instructions.