Opinion SC decision to make judges’ assets public is welcome – but not enough

The Supreme Court’s decision that judges should publicly declare their assets is welcome and significant, because it prioritises transparency and openness. In 1997, the SC had first resolved to publicly disclose judges’ assets when it adopted a code of ethics for the judiciary, the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life. Now, in a full court meeting on April 1, all judges have unanimously reaffirmed this code, agreeing to put up a list of their assets in the public domain. A 2009 Delhi High Court ruling, while upholding the disclosure of judges’ assets under the Right to Information Act, had said that “all power — judicial power being no exception — is held accountable in a modern Constitution. Holders of power too are expected to live by the standards they set, interpret, or enforce, at least to the extent their office demands. Conventions and practices, long followed, are known to be legitimate sources, and as binding upon those concerned, as the express provisions themselves.” At a time when a sitting High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, faces allegations that unaccounted cash was found at his official residence, Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna’s decision sends a much-needed signal that the judiciary is looking within in order to create institutional mechanisms of accountability.

In 2015, even as it struck down as unconstitutional the National Judicial Appointments Commission — which gave the government a foot in the door in the matter of appointing judges — the SC acknowledged that steps had to be taken to ensure accountability of judges. Now, a decade later, the two recent incidents in which questions have been raised over the conduct of judges have pointed to the continuing lack of an institutional framework. In Justice Varma’s case, the allegations concern financial corruption, and in the case of an Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Shekhar Yadav, there are accusations of partisan bias and prejudice. While an in-house judicial inquiry has been initiated in both cases, the fact is that there are few options for the institution. The Constitution sets a high bar for the impeachment of a judge, making it virtually impossible without political consensus. Even the decision to initiate an in-house inquiry is solely in the hands of the CJI, who, increasingly, has a short tenure. At the same time, informal solutions to deal with corruption, such as the transfer of a judge or withdrawal of judicial work from him, have been woefully inadequate.

Advertisement

The Collegium’s transfer policy, mostly shrouded in secrecy, for judges in the dock is now being questioned by the Bar — in the last two weeks, the Allahabad and Calcutta Bar protested the repatriation of judges to their respective high courts. That is why even though the Court’s decision to disclose assets is a step in the right direction to retain public trust in the institution, much more needs to be done. It is also important that the framework of accountability comes from within the judiciary — so that the institution can preserve its independence. In fact, the judiciary must acknowledge that accountability is a facet of its independence.