Context:
As of now, only 95 out of 769 High Court judges (12.35%) across 25 High Courts in India have voluntarily disclosed their assets and liabilities. This staggering shortfall raises urgent questions about the culture of accountability in India’s judiciary, especially given its constitutional role in upholding integrity and justice.
Trigger Point: Delhi High Court Incident and Its Symbolism
The alleged recovery of partially burnt currency notes from the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court has become more than just a legal curiosity — it serves as a symbolic flashpoint in the debate over judicial ethics and transparency.
Key Insight: The judiciary, which often holds other branches of government accountable, currently lacks internal checks when it comes to financial transparency. The absence of mandatory disclosure mechanisms leaves significant room for public skepticism and erosion of trust.
Supreme Court’s Decision: A Turning Point or Token Gesture?
On April 1, all 33 sitting Supreme Court judges unanimously agreed to make their asset declarations public. While commendable, this move raises two important considerations:
- Voluntariness vs. Institutional Mandate: Without a uniform, binding framework, this gesture risks being symbolic rather than systemic.
- Top-Down Influence: The SC’s move can create normative pressure on High Courts, but implementation will vary unless there is clear regulatory backing from bodies like the Collegium or Ministry of Law & Justice.
High Courts: A Disparate Landscape of Compliance
Disparity in Asset Disclosure Rates
| High Court | Judges Disclosed | Total Judges | Disclosure Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kerala | 41 | 44 | 93.18% |
| Himachal Pradesh | 11 | 12 | 91.66% |
| Delhi | 7 | 38 | 18.42% (↓ from 82.85% in 2018) |
| Madras | 5 | 65 | 7.69% |
| Chhattisgarh | 1 | 16 | 6.25% |
Key Takeaways:
- Kerala and Himachal Pradesh High Courts reflect a proactive internal culture of transparency, possibly shaped by regional legal traditions or leadership practices.
- Delhi High Court’s drastic fall (from 82.85% in 2018 to 18.42%) signals a regressive trend — suggesting that even previously compliant institutions may retreat in absence of enforceable standards.
- Courts like Chhattisgarh and Madras demonstrate near-zero commitment to asset disclosure, indicating a systemic neglect rather than logistical delays.
Broader Implications for Judicial Reform
- Voluntary Disclosure Is Unsustainable
- The current reliance on individual ethics rather than institutional obligation leads to inconsistency and undermines the credibility of judicial accountability mechanisms.
- Transparency Must Be Codified
- A national framework for mandatory asset disclosure, backed by either Parliament or the Supreme Court’s administrative authority, is essential.
- Public Trust Is Eroding
- Public perception increasingly associates opacity with potential misconduct. Without proactive reform, the judiciary risks losing its moral high ground.
- Transparency as a Deterrent
- Mandatory disclosures can act as a preventive tool against corruption, not merely a responsive one. The threat of public visibility often deters unethical behavior.
What Needs to Change?
Judicial transparency cannot remain a matter of personal discretion. The contrast between High Courts like Kerala and those like Chhattisgarh or Delhi demonstrates that culture alone is insufficient without codified norms. The Supreme Court’s recent commitment is a welcome start — but without a system-wide mandate, India’s judiciary remains selectively accountable.
