The Supreme Court of India held that the government cannot act contrary to its own binding policy, and quashed the Rajasthan Government’s decision to name newly created revenue villages after private individuals. In Bhika Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the dispute arose from a notification creating two revenue villages Amargarh and Sagatsar named after individuals who had donated land. The appellants challenged this action on the ground that it violated a Revenue Department circular dated 20.08.2009, which expressly prohibited naming villages after any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste, and required names to be decided by general consensus. The Supreme Court held that the circular represented a policy decision binding on the State and was intended to preserve communal harmony and neutrality in public nomenclature. The Court ruled that unless such a policy is lawfully amended or withdrawn, the government is bound to follow it. Any deviation would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Rejecting the reasoning of the High Court’s Division Bench, the Supreme Court restored the Single Judge’s view and held the naming of villages after individuals to be impermissible. The appeal was allowed, with liberty granted to the State to rename the villages strictly in accordance with law and policy.