The promise made in August that financial assets of Supreme Court judges will be in public domain has been more or less fulfilled with 21 judges, including the Chief Justice of India, posting the information on the Court’s official website. While it is a matter of great satisfaction that the highest court in the land has gone public with details of the assets — a decision that was preceded by an intense debate about the need for greater judicial accountability — it has not gone far enough. The fact that this is a voluntary declaration — something that is emphasised in the website — makes it possible for some members of the judiciary to hold out, thereby defeating the main purposes of such disclosures, which are to promote judicial transparency and ipso facto to check judicial corruption. Also, the twin aims can be met only by regular and updated disclosures and not via one-time declarations. In this context, greater judicial accountability is best achieved through a mechanism for the mandatory public disclosure of judges’ assets. Regrettably, Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan and some sections of the higher judiciary continue to strongly oppose this.

The voluntary declaration should not deter attempts to introduce legislation that mandates an accurate and full public declaration of assets. In August, the Centre was forced to withdraw the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill in Parliament, after protests cutting across party lines against a weak and self-defeating clause that disallowed declarations of assets and liabilities from being made public or questioned by any citizen, court or authority. The Centre would do well to reintroduce the legislation after making the necessary changes in the offending clause. It is important to note that the current debate about making the judiciary more transparent takes place against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s ill-advised decision to appeal against the Delhi High Court’s ruling that the nation’s highest court falls within the purview of the Right to Information Act. Public faith in the judicial system will improve only if the functioning of the higher courts is open to public scrutiny. Where is the case for keeping the higher judiciary insulated from the RTI when the office of the President of India comes under its ambit? How can a judiciary that endorses the Election Commission’s bid to make the declaration of assets of candidates to elected office mandatory sing a different tune when it comes to its own functioning? The higher judiciary must be open to supporting any move that enhances judicial transparency and, at the same time, safeguards judicial independence.