Towards closure

Should the people have access to details on judicial assets? Yes,says the final version of the Judges Inquiry Bill,potentially ending a long,acrimonious dispute between the legislature and the judiciary,and within the judiciary itself. Within the judiciary,while Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan had expressed concern that such publicly accessible details could be misused,some judges thought otherwise. And a Delhi high court judgment,by holding that the Chief Justice of Indias office is within the ambit of the Right to Information Act,publicly disagreed with the Supreme Court view in fact,so publicly that the apex court has appealed this decision. But the extent of disquiet led to judges agreeing to voluntarily make their asset details public.

More acrimonious was opposition from Parliament. The Centre had taken a middle-ground approach by formulating the Judges Declaration of Assets Bill,which required judges to declare assets to a competent authority,but not to the public. Opposition came from MPs,including those of the ruling Congress,when the bill was brought to the Rajya Sabha. Their opposition forced the government to shelve this bill. Now,a changed draft of this bill is being merged into the new Judges Inquiry Bill. This new draft clarifies two legal uncertainties. First is the uncertainty around a 1997 declaration by the Supreme Court by which judges would declare their assets to their chief. The Supreme Court has since claimed that this declaration was non-binding,even going to the high court to defend this position. But with a law in place,the status of the 1997 resolution will cease to matter any more. The second uncertainty is the ambit of the RTI Act. With the law secretary stating on record that citizens will be able to use the legislation to access declarations on assets made to the chief justice,the judicial debate over this question,currently playing out in the Delhi high court,will hopefully come to an end.

The unseemly bickering over judicial assets played out in court,in Parliament and in the public arena risked muddying the hard-earned reputation of our higher judiciary. It is hoped that the current version of the bill,when passed,helps turn the page on this sordid chapter.