Legal Review and Analysis of Bhika Ram & Anr vs State of Rajasthan & Ors 2025 INSC 1482

Case Synopsis

Bhika Ram & Anr. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2025 INSC 1482)

Synopsis:The Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of a government policy circular that prohibited naming new Revenue Villages after individuals. The Court ruled that the State Government's notification creating villages named 'Amargarh' and 'Sagatsar' (derived from personal names) was arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it contravened its own binding policy aimed at maintaining communal harmony. The judgment reinforces that the executive is bound by its self-imposed policies and cannot act in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner by ignoring them.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Bhika Ram & Anr. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors
Citation: 2025 INSC 1482
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Alok Aradhe
Date of Judgment: December 19, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets and applies the following statutory provision and executive policy:

• Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956:
  Section 16: Empowers the State Government to create, abolish, or alter villages via notification.

• Government of Rajasthan, Revenue Department Circular dated 20.08.2009:
  Clause 4: Mandates that the name of a new Revenue Village shall not be based on any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste and should be proposed with general consensus.

3. Judgment Details

Facts of the Case
Pursuant to a proposal from the Gram Panchayat, the Tehsildar of Gida, Barmer, verified and recommended the creation of four new Revenue Villages carved out of Meghwalon Ki Dhani in Village Sohda. Two of these were named 'Amargarh' and 'Sagatsar'. Individuals named Amarram and Sagat Singh (through his wife) executed affidavits agreeing to donate land for these villages. Based on this, the State Government issued a notification on 31.12.2020 under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, creating these as separate Revenue Villages. The appellants (residents of the area) challenged this notification before the Rajasthan High Court, contending that the names were derived from individuals, violating a state government circular dated 20.08.2009. The Single Judge quashed the notification for the two villages. On appeal, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the notification dated 31.12.2020 creating Revenue Villages named 'Amargarh' and 'Sagatsar' is valid?

2. Whether the State Government, while exercising power under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, is bound by its own policy circular dated 20.08.2009 which prohibits naming villages after individuals?

Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Division Bench's order, and restored the Single Judge's order. The reasoning is as follows:

• Binding Nature of Government Policy: The Court held that the circular dated 20.08.2009, particularly Clause 4, is a policy decision of the State Government. Citing precedents like Mahabir Auto Stores & Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors., the Court reiterated that a policy decision, though executive in nature, binds the Government. The Government cannot act contrary to its own policy unless it is lawfully amended or withdrawn. Any action in derogation of such a policy is arbitrary and violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution.

• Purpose of the Policy: The Court noted that Clause 4 of the circular was incorporated with the laudable object of maintaining communal harmony by ensuring that village names are not based on any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste.

• Admitted Violation: It was an admitted fact that the names 'Amargarh' and 'Sagatsar' were derived from the names of individuals Amarram and Sagat Singh. Therefore, the notification of 31.12.2020 was in direct contravention of the binding policy circular.

• Error by the Division Bench: The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench erred by focusing narrowly on the applicability of earlier High Court judgments (Moola Ram and Joga Ram) and failed to consider the fundamental issue of the State Government acting contrary to its own binding policy. The Court emphasized that a lis (lawsuit) must be adjudicated on its merits.

4. Core Principle of the Judgment

Title: The Doctrine of Self-Imposed Constraints: Enforceability of Government Policy

Main Issue Body
The core legal issue addressed was the extent to which the executive government is bound by its own non-statutory policy directives when exercising statutory powers, and the constitutional implications of deviating from such self-imposed norms.

Analysis and Explanation:
This judgment reinforces a critical administrative law principle concerning the nature of executive power. The Supreme Court moved beyond a mere textual analysis of the circular to establish a broader constitutional principle.

1. Policy as a Limitation on Executive Discretion: The Court clarified that when the government lays down a policy—especially one aimed at achieving important constitutional goals like communal harmony—it voluntarily restricts its own wide discretion. The power under Section 16 of the Land Revenue Act to create villages is unguided and broad. The 2009 circular provides the necessary guidance and conditions for its exercise. Once such a policy is established, the government cannot arbitrarily ignore it in individual cases. To do so would render the policy meaningless and the government's action whimsical.

2. Link to Article 14 and Non-Arbitrariness: The judgment firmly anchors the enforceability of government policy to Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that arbitrary state action is prohibited. If the state makes a rule for itself (a policy) and then breaks it without a rational basis or valid justification (like amending the policy), such action is per se arbitrary. It creates an uneven and unpredictable application of state power, violating the guarantee of equality before law. The circular, by mandating neutral names based on general consensus, seeks to prevent the state machinery from being used to perpetuate personal, caste, or religious identities in public geography, thereby upholding a secular and harmonious public sphere.

3. Substance Over Form in Nomenclature: The Court looked at the substance behind the naming exercise. The fact that the individuals whose names formed the basis of the village names were also the land donors indicated that the naming could be perceived as a form of recognition or patronage, which is precisely what the policy seeks to avoid. The judgment underscores that in matters of public administration and nomenclature, the state must act with neutrality and foresight to prevent social fissures, making adherence to such a policy imperative.

5. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Bhika Ram & Anr. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 05.08.2025 was quashed and set aside. The order of the Single Judge dated 11.07.2025, which had quashed the notification of 31.12.2020 concerning the Revenue Villages 'Amargarh' and 'Sagatsar', was restored. The State Government was therefore directed not to give effect to the creation of villages with those names, with liberty to rename them in accordance with the law (i.e., following the 2009 circular).

6. MCQ Questions Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In Bhika Ram vs State of Rajasthan (2025 INSC 1482), the Supreme Court quashed the notification creating new Revenue Villages. What was the primary ground for this decision?
a) The notification was issued without the approval of the Gram Panchayat.
b) The State Government violated its own binding policy circular by naming villages after individuals.
c) The land for the villages was not donated voluntarily.
d) The procedure under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act was not followed.

Question 2: The Supreme Court, in the aforementioned judgment, held that the Government's deviation from its own policy circular was invalid as it violated which fundamental constitutional principle?
a) Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression)
b) Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty)
c) Article 14 (Right to Equality, prohibiting arbitrariness)
d) Article 32 (Right to Constitutional Remedies)