JUDGES’ ASSETS GO PUBLIC: A NEW CHAPTER IN JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY FOR INDIA

Author: Devesh singh chauhan, a student at Amity University, Gwalior

INTRODUCTION

A new era of enhancing judicial transparency began with a full court meeting on April 1, 2025, where all 33 sitting judges unanimously agreed to disclose their assets. Thirty of these judges have already made their asset declarations public by publishing them on the court’s official website. While it was previously mandatory for judges to disclose their assets to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the official resolution allowing this information to be accessible to the public hasn’t been uploaded yet. Under the previous practice, declaring assets to the CJI was mandatory, but public disclosure was voluntary. This shift in policy comes in the wake of recent allegations regarding burnt currency found at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court. Following this incident, the collegium convened and decided to transfer him to his parent High Court, the Allahabad High Court, where he now ranks ninth in seniority. Prior to this transfer, he was the second most senior judge at the Delhi High Court and a member of the collegium.

RECENT SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION

A full court meeting was held on April 1, 2025, during which all sitting judges of the Apex Court passed a resolution requiring all judges to publicly disclose their assets by publishing this information on the court’s official website. This requirement also applies to future appointees to the Apex Court. Previously, judges were required to disclose their assets to the Chief Justice of India, but such disclosure to the public was voluntary.

The assets to be disclosed include movable and immovable properties belonging to the judges, their spouses, and dependents. This includes virtual investments such as shares, fixed deposits, mutual funds, and liabilities, such as bank loans.

These provisional steps have been taken in light of recent controversies to rebuild public trust and enhance judicial transparency.

OTHER LEGAL PROVISION FOR DECLARATION OF ASSETS BY JUDGES

The Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Act, 2004: This legislation mandates that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts disclose their assets and liabilities, including those of their spouses and dependents. According to Section 3, every judge within these courts is required to provide this disclosure within 45 days of their appointment. Section 4 delineates the procedure for such disclosures: the Chief Justice of India receives reports from Supreme Court judges, the Chief Justice of the High Court receives disclosures from High Court judges, and Sessions Judges, District Judges, and other Subordinate Judges report to the Chief Justice of the High Court. It is important to note that the disclosures are not mandated to be made public.
Right to Information Act, 2005: This act stipulates in Section 4 that public authorities must ensure transparency in their operations. Although the judiciary was originally exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act, subsequent rulings by the Supreme Court permitted, to a certain extent, the disclosure of judicial and administrative records to the public.

In the case of Manoj Kumar Soni v. The Chief Justice of India (2012), the issue arose regarding whether the Chief Justice of India and Supreme Court judges are obligated to publicly disclose their assets and liabilities under the RTI Act. In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the public’s right to scrutinize the disclosures of judges’ assets and liabilities, thereby enhancing judicial transparency. However, the court also preserved the independence of the judiciary by ensuring that the judicial process—including decisions, judgments, and internal deliberations—remains protected from scrutiny under the RTI Act.

CATALYST FOR CHANGES: THE BURNING CURRENCY

Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, the second most senior judge within the court and a member of the collegium, has been subject to allegations concerning the discovery of burnt currency at his residence. Justice Varma has firmly denied any involvement, asserting that the currency in question was located in an outhouse designated for the storage of currency, which is readily accessible to various workers.

To facilitate a thorough investigation, Justice Varma was transferred to his parent court, the Allahabad High Court, where he holds the ninth position in seniority. The Supreme Court subsequently clarified that this transfer was unrelated to the circumstances surrounding the cash discovery dispute.

This incident has prompted significant inquiries into judicial transparency, which the Supreme Court addressed in a recent resolution, affirming its commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial system.

VIOLATION OF LAWS IN BURNING CURRENCY CASE

The burning of currency is subject to several laws that protect public property, which includes currency. Here are some relevant acts:

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984: This act addresses the damage to public property, including currency notes. Section 3 of this act specifically outlines the punishment for causing mischief that results in damage to public property, with penalties that may extend to three years of imprisonment, a fine, or both.
RBI Act, 1934: This act governs the management and regulation of currency. Section 22 of the RBI Act prohibits the destruction or defacement of any currency note or banknote, with penalties that may extend to seven years of imprisonment, a fine, or both.
Prevention and punishment of Money Laundering(PMLA) : This act seeks to prevent and punish money laundering, which involves concealing or disguising the origins of illegally obtained funds.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, establishes guidelines regarding the salaries of civil servants and judges. Rule 16(1) mandates that every member of the service must submit a return of their assets and liabilities, which should also apply to judges.
In the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life 1997, the Supreme Court set rules requiring judges to declare all assets (including real estate and investments) held in their name, as well as those held by their spouse and dependents, to the Chief Justice.
In a 2009 Supreme Court resolution, the court stated that judges could voluntarily declare their assets to the public via an official website.
The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill of 2010 aimed to enhance judicial transparency by mandating that all judges publicly declare their assets. However, this bill lapsed in the 15th Lok Sabha and was never reintroduced.

Comparison with Other Public Servants

The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, specifically Rule 16(1), mandates that public personnel report their assets on an annual basis.
Political candidates are also required to disclose their assets during elections, as established in the case ADR v. UoI, 2002.
Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) must ensure that their asset declarations are accessible to the public by submitting them to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.
Additionally, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) requires Union Ministers to register their assets, and this information is often made available to the public online.

CONCLUSION

An incident can cause turmoil that raises doubts about the judicial system. To maintain public trust in the judiciary and the law, measures have been implemented to promote transparency between judges and the public. Although the judicial system has upheld transparency with timely resolutions and judgments, ongoing efforts are essential to preserve this trust.

REFERENCES