The Rajasthan High Court has stepped into a significant dispute concerning the evaluation of state prosecutors, issuing formal notices to the top brass of the state's home department. A single-judge bench has called for the government's stance on a petition that contests a controversial change in the annual performance appraisal system for these legal officers.
Bench Seeks Government's Explanation
Justice Ashok Jain's bench issued the notices to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and the Director of Prosecution for Rajasthan on Thursday. The order, which became available on Saturday, directs the officials to present the government's reasoning behind its decision. The court has scheduled the next hearing on January 12, when the ACS (Home) must place the official decision before the bench for scrutiny.
The Core of the Legal Challenge
The petition was filed by the Rajasthan Prosecution Officers Association, represented by its President, Pratibha Purohit. The association, representing approximately 600 Assistant Prosecution Officers working across district and sessions courts and various trial courts in the state, has taken strong objection to a specific modification in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR).
Their primary contention is that the introduction of a dedicated column to evaluate officers based on their conviction rate is fundamentally flawed. They argue this criterion is arbitrary, unreasonable, and goes against established constitutional principles and binding judicial precedents set by higher courts.
Why Conviction Rate is a Problematic Metric
Advocate Tanveer Ahamed, counsel for the petitioner association, elaborated on the legal arguments. He emphasized that the outcome of a criminal case—whether it ends in conviction or acquittal—depends on a multitude of factors that are completely beyond the control of a prosecuting officer.
"Conviction or acquittal also depends on the quality of investigation, availability and reliability of witnesses, and the nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency," Ahamed stated. He further cited settled law from the Supreme Court of India, which has previously ruled that the conviction rate cannot be the sole or decisive parameter for assessing a prosecutor's performance. The petition asserts that holding prosecutors solely accountable for conviction statistics ignores the collaborative and often variable nature of criminal justice delivery.
Implications and Next Steps
This legal challenge highlights a critical tension within the judicial administration: the push for quantifiable performance metrics versus the qualitative and complex realities of legal practice. The High Court's intervention puts a spotlight on the working conditions and evaluation fairness for hundreds of prosecutors in Rajasthan. The state government's response, due on January 12, will be crucial in determining whether the new APAR format will stand or be revised. The case could set a significant precedent for how legal professionals across states are evaluated, ensuring their appraisal is based on factors within their legitimate purview.
