Read Time: 15 minutes

Synopsis

In an attempt to enhance transparency, all 33 sitting judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, recently resolved to publicly disclose their assets—a move that revives the judiciary’s long-dormant commitment to transparency first laid out in 1997’s Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.

Coming at a time when the higher judiciary faces heightened public scrutiny—particularly after heaps of cash were recovered from Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence—the move has sparked cautious optimism. But it also raises a pressing question: is this a genuine shift toward structural reform, or just a symbolic act to placate growing criticism?

To explore the significance of the decision, Lawbeat spoke to members of the legal fraternity.

Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi of the Supreme Court believes the decision sends a strong signal. “The Hon’ble judges have given additional reason to show that they are always upholding transparency and accountability. The decision is one amongst many steps to strengthen public trust in the justice delivery system, and it has set a powerful message showing integrity in public life.”

However, not everyone is convinced it marks a turning point. Senior Advocate Sacchin Puri of the Delhi High Court while agrees that asset disclosure in public is “a step in the right direction,” but it is not sufficient by itself. "Voluntary is a commendable step. As long as this is undertaken periodically, it would serve the purpose," he says.

Senior Advocate Pradeep Bakshi of the Delhi High Court echoes this concern. “A greater scrutiny needs to be carried out at the time of appointment of a judge and should include the judge’s immediate family. Mere disclosure of assets, in my view, is and would be a token gesture,” he says.

Advocate Tanmay Sadh of Lawbridge Partners, Allahabad also suggests that “this is a symbolic gesture—driven more by recent controversies than systemic reform". “Public disclosure of assets by judges has been a debatable issue since 1997 but till date there is no mandatory requirement for the judges to disclose their assets and even today the said moves comes as a result of consensus amongst all the SC judges who voluntarily took a decision to disclose their assets. Unless such disclosure is made mandatory there will not be any judicial transparency,” he stresses.

Offering a more nuanced perspective, Advocate Devaang Savla, also of Lawbridge Partners, Allahabad views the decision as part of a larger balancing act: "The public disclosure of assets of a judge needs to serve a purpose; which in the present realm could be to aid judicial accountability, independence, and impartial justice. If not a token gesture, this could pave a pathway for future reform."

He says that the present decision of the Supreme Court judges should be seen less as a scrutiny and more of an attempt to restructure the independent collegium system; respecting its autonomy.

Still, he offers a note of caution. "If the disclosure is made mandatory, the same could lead to unnecessary and uncalled scrutiny of judicial officers throughout India unless the procedure is validly introduced".

Indeed, while the judiciary may now appear more willing to “open its books,” deeper opacity persists around key functions—judicial appointments, case allocation etc.

While Sr. Adv Puri asserts that "appointments, case allocation, and recusals are already in the public domain," Adv Sadh suggests, “The appointment of judges from the Bar should be made in such a manner that a practicing advocate who is being considered for elevation should not be elevated to the same high court in which he was practicing, similar to the appointment of the chief justices".

Adv Savla agrees that transparency must evolve but believes judicial independence must be protected. "Judicial transparency is not a bounded affair and public perception plays a very pivotal role to justify its being. Appointments, in principle, should remain the prerogative of the judiciary. The existing system itself can evolve toward greater transparency—it’s a more reasonable approach than external interference".

On case allocations and recusals, Adv Savla maintains these remain individual, independent functions. "The master of roster system and personal perogative to adjudge a particular case; should be left to the wit of the individual. However, in evident circumstances the existing administrative powers are well equipped to counter the same," he opines. 

The Supreme Court had itself acknowledged the need for institutional accountability when it struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission in 2015. Nearly a decade later, many in the legal community argue that meaningful reform is still lacking.

Is judicial independence being used as a shield against scrutiny?

Sr Adv Pradeep Bakshi emphasizes that once a judge is appointed, their evaluation should be based solely on their performance and judgments. He believes that a judge should only be assessed by their peers, if at all.

Sr Adv Sacchin Puri says that "judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The independence of the judiciary must not be compromised". "However, the principle is meant to protect the judiciary from external interference, not internal scrutiny," he adds. 

On the other hand, Adv Sadh points to the imbalance: “It is a well known saying that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The said saying is equally applicable to judiciary. The requirement of judicial accountability is the need of the hour considering the recent trends in the judiciary.”

Adv Savla takes a more measured approach. "Independence in no manner has ever resisted the change to bring in better and more perceived accountability and the existing system could adopt better means to improve the same, which is an ever-evolving process".

So why hasn’t the legal fraternity demanded stronger reforms?

“Lack of proper leadership and support from the members of the Bar,” says Adv Sadh. “Until and unless all the members of the bar come to a common consensus and stand united demanding for stronger transparency, there will be no positive result”.

Adv Savla attributes the hesitation to inertia more than indifference. However, he emphasises that judges in mostly all circumstances are sensitive and give a proper hearing to such voices, and, the reciprocal action, if any, maybe more in consonance with the administrative limitations of the judiciary.

Adv Sadh further points to a deeper institutional issue: “There is a lack of an effective mechanism to address the issue of misconduct and corruption in judiciary which undermines the concept of judicial accountability and also erodes the perception of judicial integrity. Unless there is an effective mechanism to address the same, judicial integrity will be a cause of concern in the coming years looking at the recent judicial trends.”

Adv Savla concurs that while corrective mechanisms exist—particularly within Parliament—their implementation remains weak. “The powers exist, but history has shown us they lack robustness.”

He concludes, "The entire debate and discussion is to better the existing framework, within the given ambit of constitutional functionality".

Whether the decision to disclose assets in public signals a long-term cultural shift or remains a timely, symbolic gesture, one thing is clear: it has reignited a necessary conversation around judicial accountability.

The judiciary may have cracked open the door to transparency. Whether it walks through remains to be seen.