Thanks,Lordships

The decision by Supreme Court judges to post details of their assets on the courts website is welcome. It brings to an end weeks of debate that threatened to give the impression of the higher judiciary holding itself against not just the legislature,but also the drift of public opinion. The immense credibility that the judiciary enjoys is vital to the functioning of our democracy,and Wednesdays development opens up lines of engagement on issues of transparency and accountability that could further strengthen the judiciarys reputation.

That judges,like other public officials,must make their assets open to public scrutiny seems obvious. But the back story of this proposal highlights the sensitivities that were involved in reaching a compromise. In 1997,the SC unanimously agreed that judges assets would be declared to the chief justice. More than a decade later,when an RTI application sought this data,the SC opposed it,on the grounds that the 1997 declaration was non-binding. The sound and fury that the courts reluctance provoked can still be heard today,with members of Parliament,even those from the ruling Congress,recently sinking an attempt to pass a compromise law that nonetheless shielded judicial assets from public scrutiny. It was not just the public and Parliament who were unsettled at what they perceived to be double standards. Dissent from within the judiciary was also heard. Former Chief Justice J.S. Verma responsible for the 1997 declaration and a sitting high court judge publicly disagreed with the Chief Justice of Indias reluctance to make assets public in the absence of a law. Wednesdays SC resolution is only the latest curve in this rollercoaster ride. It is hoped the high courts follow with similar declarations of their own.

But accountability in the higher judiciary means more than just assets. There is,for instance,the Judges Inquiry Bill,aimed at making the process of disciplining a judge less cumbersome than the current impeachment option not once successful,or the pointless transfers to remote courts rarely effective. The Judges Inquiry Bill requires cooperation between the executive,legislature and judiciary,and will take some doing. But by voluntarily putting information about their assets in the public domain,SC judges have staved off the possibility of confrontation. For that,the judges can take a bow.