Context: Among the 769 judges currently serving in the 25 High Courts of India, only 95, a mere 12.35% have chosen to disclose their assets and liabilities on their official websites. This comes in the backdrop of intense discussions around transparency in Indian Judiciary.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Judicial Accountability: Need, Challenges and Mechanism.
Disclosure of Assets by Judges
- Unlike government officials and politicians (under the Lokpal Act), judges are not bound to publicly declare their assets and liabilities.
- Recently, the Chief Justice of India and all the sitting judges of the Supreme Court have unanimously agreed to publicly disclose their assets by publishing the details on the apex court’s official website.
- This marks a significant move towards greater transparency in the Indian judiciary and is a reiteration of the Judicial Code of Conduct 1997.
Key points from Judicial Code of Conduct 1997
- Judges must avoid actions that erode people's faith in the Higher Judiciary.
- Must not contest elections/hold office in clubs, societies, and associations.
- If any immediate family members are members of the Bar, they cannot be permitted to use the judge’s residence for professional work.
- Must be impartial by maintaining distance from the case.
- Must not hear and decide cases where a family member or friend is involved.
- Must not publicly express views on political matters that may arise for judicial determination.
- Must not accept gifts or hospitality from anyone besides family and friends.
- Should not seek any financial benefit connected to her office unless it is clearly available.
Need for Transparency in Judiciary:
- Rule of Law: To uphold the rule of law which is part of basic structure doctrine.
- Institutional integrity: To dispel the notion of favouritism, bias or interference and increased institutional responsibility.
- Increase public confidence in the institution of judiciary; independence must not become an alibi for arbitrariness.
Concerns related to Judicial Transparency and Accountability
- Collegium system: Appointment, promotion, and transfer of judges of higher judiciary is carried out by the collegium system with lack of transparency.
- Allocation of cases: Chief Justice allocates cases to different benches of the Court and picks judges to form Constitution Benches, which decide substantial questions of law. Since CJI has the full control over this, there are apprehensions that judges with similar school of thought are appointed in a bench to get a favourable judgement.
- Power to list: The Chief also enjoys the power to list cases. It means that if the CJI wishes to do so, they may never list a Constitution Bench case at all in their tenure.
- Lack of clarity in formation of Constitution bench: There are no publicly known criteria or factors which CJI must consider while forming a Constitution Bench or allocating cases to that bench. It raises questions as to whether the CJI is more likely to select judges who are on the page ideologically.
- Sealed Covers: At many instances, like the NRC case, 2G spectrum case, the supreme court invited the reports in sealed covers inviting suspicion from civil society.
- Recusal: Currently, judges recuse from hearing cases when there is a conflict of interest. However, there are no clear rules about when recusal should happen and provision for appellants to appeal for recusal.
Provisions related to Judicial Accountability
Constitutional Provisions:
- Article 124(4) and 124(5): It allows impeachment of Supreme Court judges for proven misbehavior or incapacity.
- Article 217: Impeachment of High Court judges based on similar mentioned grounds.
- Article 235: It empowers High Courts to control and supervise the subordinate courts.
Statutory Provisions:
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: It has established a mechanism to investigate judicial misconduct.
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: It ensures that judiciary functions independently without undue influence.
- In house procedure to conduct inquiries against judges who allegedly transgressed the values and standards of judicial conduct, and face allegations of misbehaviour or corruption.
- The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: It requires judges to declare their assets, lays down judicial standards and establishes processes for the removal of judges of the Supreme Court and high courts. (lapsed)
- Judicial Code of Conduct (1997): This document named Reinstatement of Judicial values was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997 which lays down ethical standards for SC and HC Judges.









