SUPREME COURT: GOVERNMENT BOUND BY ITS OWN POLICY, STRIKES DOWN RAJASTHAN VILLAGE NAMES AFTER INDIVIDUALS:

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India emphasised that government authorities are bound by their own policy decisions and cannot deviate from them without proper amendment or withdrawal. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe allowed an appeal by residents of Sohda village in Barmer district, Rajasthan, thereby overturning a Division Bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court and reinstating a Single Judge's order that invalidated parts of a government notification.

The case originated from a December 31, 2020, notification issued by the Rajasthan government under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. This notification established several new revenue villages, including Amargarh and Sagatsar, which were carved out from Meghwalo Ki Dhani within Sohda village. Prior to issuance, the Tehsildar had verified that all procedural requirements were fulfilled, with no outstanding disputes, and individuals had submitted affidavits agreeing to donate land for these new entities.

Objections surfaced later, during a 2025 process for reorganising Gram Panchayats, when villagers contended that the names Amargarh and Sagatsar were based on private individuals—specifically Amarram and Sagat Singh, who had contributed land. The residents challenged the notification in the Rajasthan High Court, focusing on these two villages.

On July 11, 2025, a Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favour of the petitioners. The judge determined that the naming contravened a 2009 circular from the state Revenue Department, which explicitly prohibits assigning names to revenue villages derived from any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste. Drawing on prior judicial precedents, the Single Judge quashed the relevant portions of the 2020 notification pertaining to Amargarh and Sagatsar, while permitting the government to assign new names compliant with the policy. This decision was reversed by a Division Bench on August 5, 2025. The Division Bench reasoned that earlier rulings on similar issues could not apply retroactively, as the village creation process had already been completed.

The Supreme Court, however, found fault with the Division Bench's approach, noting that it overlooked the mandatory character of the 2009 circular. Clause 4 of the circular stipulates that revenue village names must avoid references to individuals, a measure intended to preserve communal harmony. The bench underscored that executive policy decisions, even if not statutory, bind the government and require adherence unless formally altered or revoked. Departing from such policies without justification renders the action arbitrary and in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

It was undisputed in the proceedings that Amargarh and Sagatsar drew their names from the land donors. Consequently, the 2020 notification violated the circular and lacked legal validity in respect of these villages. The Supreme Court further observed that pending litigation must be resolved on substantive merits, and the state cannot defend unlawful actions merely because they have achieved finality. Ultimately, the apex court set aside the Division Bench's August 5, 2025, judgment and revived the Single Judge's July 11, 2025, order. This effectively nullified the creation of Amargarh and Sagatsar under the original names, while leaving room for the government to proceed with lawful renaming.