Govt can’t act against its own policy, says SC

“It is well settled in law that a policy decision though executive in nature binds the government, and it cannot act contrary thereto, unless the policy is lawfully amended or withdrawn,” a Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe said in its December 19 verdict.

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Alok Aradhe said, “Any action taken in derogation of such a policy, without amendment or valid justification, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Bhikha Ram and others — residents of Sohda village in Barmer district — had challenged before the Rajasthan High Court the naming newly created revenue villages after private individuals and a single judge on July 11, 2025, quashed the state government’s notifications with regard to creation of the revenue villages “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar”. The judge held that the naming of the villages violated a Rajasthan Government’s circular dated August 20, 2009, which prohibited naming revenue villages after any person, religion and caste or sub-caste.

However, a Division Bench of the high court upheld the state government’s decision.

Allowing the appeal filed by Bhikha Ram and others, the top court restored a single judge’s order quashing the state government’s notifications in this regard. It held that the Rajasthan Government acted in violation of its own binding policy by naming newly created revenue villages after private individuals.

“In any case, the litigation pending before a court is required to be adjudicated on merits,” it said.

The dispute related to the Rajasthan Government’s December 31, 2020, notification under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, by which several new revenue villages, including Amargarh and Sagatsar carved out of Meghwalo Ki Dhani in Sohda village, Barmer district, were created.

The tehsildar (land records) had certified that all requirements for formation of new revenue villages were met and that there was no dispute regarding their creation. Affidavits were also filed by individuals agreeing to donate land for the proposed villages.

However, during an exercise for reorganisation of gram panchayats in 2025 objections were raised by villagers alleging that the names “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” were derived from the names of individuals, namely Amarram and Sagat Singh.

“Admittedly, the names of the revenue villages, namely Amargarh and Sagatsar, are derived from the names of the individuals, namely Amarram and Sagat Singh. The notification dated 31.12.2020 is, therefore, in contravention of clause 4 of the circular dated 20.08.2009. The state government cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the policy framed by it, which binds it. Therefore, no legal sanctity can be attached to the impugned notification dated 31.12.2020, insofar as it pertains to revenue villages, namely Amargarh and Sagatsar,” the top court held.