Saying ‘yes’ to disclosure

It augurs well for the judiciary that the Supreme Court judges have now agreed to disclose their assets. Undoubtedly, it will boost transparency and accountability in the judiciary and enhance the people’s respect for it. The fact that all 23 serving judges led by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan agreed at Wednesday’s meeting to make their assets public shows that public respect for the judiciary was important in a healthy democracy. The decision comes after months of public debate over the issue. The chorus for transparency in the judiciary became shrill with the media, the public, parliamentarians, former CJIs and three sitting high court judges themselves favouring asset disclosure. The Tribune has been consistently maintaining in these columns that leaving a few, most judges are known for their integrity and character. It was thus unclear why some of them were feeling shy of being transparent.

The demand for asset disclosure should be seen in the light of reports of misconduct and corruption among some judges in high courts and lower judiciary. These seem to have eroded the judiciary’s fair image and reputation. As most judges are believed to be honest, their reluctance to disclose assets had created an erroneous impression among the public that they had something to hide. Worse, the recently aborted Judges’ (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill, 2009, was an anomaly in an age of transparency and the Right to Information. Clause 6 of the Bill sought to keep such information out of the public domain. No wonder, MPs opposed the Bill tooth and nail and the Centre promised to bring forward a new legislation in deference to their wishes.

Today, judges exercise more power than any other organ of the state and, therefore, they need to respect the principle that they are accountable to, besides their conscience, the Constitution and the people. It is this logic that guided the apex court to order candidates contesting Parliament and Assembly elections to declare their assets while filing their nomination papers. In a democracy, the people have the right to know whether ministers, civil servants and judges have acquired assets disproportionate to their income. None can seek immunity from this. The judges’ decision to disclose their assets is welcome. They ought to follow it up by accepting the Right to Information Act — at least on the administrative side of the judiciary. Enough safeguards can be provided in the RTI law to ensure that its independence does not get compromised in any way.