Judicial Transparency Under Scrutiny: Calls for Mandatory Asset Disclosure Gain Momentum

(Source – Indian Express, Section – Explained, Page – 22)

Analysis of the news:

Supreme Court’s Stance on Asset Disclosure

• In 1997, the Supreme Court passed a resolution requiring judges to declare their assets to the Chief Justice, but not to the public.

• In 2009, a voluntary disclosure system was adopted, leading to some judges publishing their assets on the SC website.

• However, this effort has been inconsistent, with no updates since 2018, and the lack of public access to current judges’ declarations.

• Despite a 2019 SC ruling stating that judicial asset declarations are not “personal information,” transparency remains limited.

Lack of Transparency in High Courts

• The situation in High Courts is even more opaque. Out of 770 High Court judges, only 97 (less than 13%) have voluntarily disclosed their assets.

• Most High Courts have resisted public disclosures, with some even explicitly opposing the idea under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

• Efforts by journalists and activists to access such information through RTI applications have largely been unsuccessful, with courts citing legal exemptions.

Legislative Recommendations and Inaction

• In 2023, a parliamentary committee recommended legislation mandating judges’ asset disclosures, but no concrete steps have been taken to implement it.

• This lack of progress highlights the judiciary’s reluctance to be subjected to the same transparency norms that apply to other public officials.

Comparison with Other Public Servants

• Unlike judges, many public servants, including bureaucrats, ministers, and elected representatives, are required to disclose their assets.

• The RTI Act has played a key role in ensuring government officials declare their assets annually, often making them publicly accessible.

• Politicians must disclose their wealth while filing election nominations, with any discrepancies leading to disqualification.

• This contrast raises questions about why the judiciary remains an exception.

Conclusion

• The reluctance of the judiciary to embrace transparency undermines public trust in the legal system.

• Given the judiciary’s critical role in upholding democracy and justice, ensuring accountability through mandatory asset disclosure is essential.

• Without such reforms, concerns over corruption and lack of oversight in the judiciary will continue to persist.