Shocking: Less than 7% of India’s High Court judges disclose their assets, raising serious concerns about judicial transparency.
NEW DELHI: The recent decision by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna to initiate an in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court marks a significant step towards ensuring transparency within the judiciary. This move, following allegations that burnt currency notes were discovered at Justice Varma’s residence, has helped quell speculation regarding judicial accountability.
By demonstrating openness in addressing the issue, the Supreme Court has highlighted its commitment to upholding the integrity of the judiciary. However, this episode also raises broader concerns about financial transparency and the mechanisms available for judicial oversight.
The In-House Inquiry and Judicial Response
The response to the allegations has been multi-pronged. A preliminary report was obtained from the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice D.K. Upadhyaya, alongside a response from Justice Varma himself. Furthermore, it has been decided that Justice Varma will not be assigned any judicial work, and steps were already underway to transfer him back to his parent High Court in Allahabad. The inquiry will be conducted by the Chief Justices of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Himachal Pradesh High Court, along with a judge from the Karnataka High Court.
Despite Justice Varma’s firm denial of any connection to the cash found, the Supreme Court’s proactive approach signals its determination to get to the root of the matter. Notably, the Court has taken the unusual step of publicly releasing photographs and a video of the burnt notes, along with Justice Upadhyaya’s report and Justice Varma’s response. This level of transparency is rare in judicial investigations and raises expectations that the findings of the in-house inquiry might also be made public.
Nevertheless, concerns remain about the efficacy of this probe mechanism, particularly if it emerges that the incident was an orchestrated attempt to implicate Justice Varma. A conventional police investigation might have been better suited to determine critical facts, such as the origins of the fire and the handling of the burnt currency.
A puzzling aspect of the case involves contradictory claims from a Fire Services official, who initially stated that no currency notes were discovered, only for this claim to be later retracted. The judiciary’s internal mechanisms, while necessary in the absence of direct police intervention, must be robust enough to ensure credibility.
The Larger Issue of Judicial Financial Transparency
The controversy surrounding Justice Varma has reignited debates on judicial accountability, particularly regarding financial transparency. A glaring concern is that, despite multiple discussions on the subject, the majority of High Court judges in India have not voluntarily disclosed their assets.
Current Statistics on Asset Declaration by High Court Judges
- Sanctioned Strength of High Court Judges in India: 1,122
- Currently Sitting High Court Judges: 763
- Judges Who Have Publicly Declared Their Assets: 49 (Less than 7%)
The reluctance to disclose assets is especially evident in 18 out of the 25 High Courts, where not a single judge has voluntarily made their financial details public. These High Courts include:
- Allahabad High Court
- Andhra Pradesh High Court
- Bombay High Court
- Calcutta High Court
- Gauhati High Court
- Gujarat High Court
- Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
- Jharkhand High Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Manipur High Court
- Meghalaya High Court
- Odisha High Court
- Patna High Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Sikkim High Court
- Telangana High Court
- Tripura High Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
High Courts with Partial Asset Declarations
Some High Courts have shown a degree of transparency, with varying levels of voluntary asset disclosure:
- Punjab & Haryana High Court (Most Transparent)
- Total Judges: 53
- Judges Who Declared Assets: 29 (~54%)
- Delhi High Court
- Total Judges: 39
- Judges Who Declared Assets: 7 (~18%)
- Chhattisgarh High Court
- Total Judges: 16
- Judges Who Declared Assets: 1 (~6%)
- Himachal Pradesh High Court
- Total Judges: 12
- Judges Who Declared Assets: 3 (~25%)
The Legal Framework and the Debate on Judicial Asset Declarations
Supreme Court’s Position on Asset Declaration
The Supreme Court has previously clarified that judges may disclose whether they have declared their assets but are not obligated to make specific details public. This stance has fueled debates on whether the existing level of transparency is adequate for ensuring judicial accountability.
The Lokpal Act and Calls for Greater Oversight
Under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, all public servants receiving salaries from taxpayers’ money must publicly declare their assets and those of their spouses and dependents. However, the judiciary, while considered an independent pillar of democracy, is exempt from these requirements. Calls to extend these obligations to judges have gained traction, especially in light of recent controversies.
ALSO READ: VP Dhankhar Calls Meeting on Judicial Accountability Over Delhi HC Judge Cash Case
Government’s Consideration of Mandatory Asset Disclosure
The Union Government has previously deliberated on enacting laws that would make it compulsory for Supreme Court and High Court judges to declare their assets publicly. However, no concrete legislation has been implemented so far.
Why Judicial Transparency is Crucial
Transparency in the judiciary is fundamental to maintaining public confidence in the legal system. Judges wield immense power in interpreting laws, deciding critical cases, and upholding constitutional principles. The absence of financial disclosure raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, unethical practices, and possible avenues for corruption.
While many judges adhere to high ethical standards, the lack of mandatory transparency creates uncertainty, making it difficult to distinguish between cases of genuine integrity and possible misconduct. The controversy surrounding Justice Yashwant Varma highlights the need for stronger accountability mechanisms to prevent similar situations in the future.
The Path Forward
The stark disparity in asset declarations across different High Courts underscores the necessity for a standardized and uniform policy on financial transparency for the judiciary. The example of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, where over half of the judges voluntarily disclosed their assets, demonstrates that greater openness is possible. However, the widespread reluctance seen across most High Courts suggests that voluntary disclosure alone may not be effective.
To uphold judicial integrity and strengthen public trust, the government and the judiciary must collaborate to establish clear, mandatory guidelines for financial disclosure. Judicial independence should not equate to insulation from scrutiny. Instead, accountability and transparency should be embraced as essential components of a robust and credible judicial system.
Implementing a balanced approach that safeguards both judicial independence and public trust will be crucial in shaping a more transparent and accountable judiciary in India.
READ MORE REPORTS ON JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE