Supreme Court Reviews Rajasthan HC’s Decision on Judicial Officer’s Appraisal
The Supreme Court of India has raised concerns regarding the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to downgrade the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) of judicial officer Rakesh Goyal. Despite receiving positive assessments from judges directly overseeing his work, Goyal’s performance was evaluated less favorably by the High Court’s administrative side.
The case was presented before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. This hearing was in connection with an appeal challenging a Rajasthan High Court judgment from May 2026, which had previously expunged negative remarks from Goyal’s 2010 APAR.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court questioned whether the Chief Justice of a High Court, who had not directly supervised Goyal during the relevant period, had sufficient grounds to override the opinions of the district judge and other supervising judges. The bench probed, “Would it not require a much higher standard to downgrade the finding of the District Judge or the Administrative Judge?”
Moreover, the Supreme Court scrutinized the reliance on an allegation against Goyal that had already been dismissed. “Is that charge true? It has been dropped. You are again resurrecting something which your administration has dropped,” remarked the Court. The Supreme Court has since requested the Rajasthan High Court to provide the original records containing the Chief Justice’s remarks for further examination.
Rakesh Goyal, who commenced his role as a Civil Judge in 2002, received a “Good” rating from his Reporting Officer for Part I of his 2010 APAR. However, the Chief Justice later revised this assessment to “Average.” For Part II, although the District Judge confirmed Goyal’s integrity and good reputation for honesty, the Chief Justice recorded his integrity as “doubtful.”
More Read
In May, the Rajasthan High Court’s Division Bench found no substantiated basis for the adverse integrity remark. The court also noted inconsistencies, such as entries from two different periods under separate Chief Justices being recorded in the same handwriting and ink in 2012, suggesting potential manipulation of Goyal’s service records.
The High Court eventually directed that Goyal’s 2010 APAR be updated to reflect a “Good” rating, with his integrity noted as “not doubtful,” thereby allowing him to receive corresponding benefits. Representing the Rajasthan High Court, Senior Advocate Virendra Lodha referenced Goyal’s previous service records, including an allegation related to a petrol pump application during his tenure as a judicial officer.
This case highlights the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of whether a Chief Justice can alter a judicial officer’s appraisal contrary to other judges’ evaluations, without providing a higher standard of justification.
