The discovery of large sums of cash at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence has renewed concerns over judicial transparency and the need for mandatory asset disclosure.
NEW DELHI: The recent discovery of large sums of cash at the residence of Delhi High Court Judge Justice Yashwant Varma has reignited concerns regarding transparency and potential corruption within India’s higher judiciary. This incident has further strengthened the demand for mandatory public disclosure of judges’ assets and liabilities, a topic that has been debated for years but has seen little concrete progress.
The Current Legal Framework on Judges’ Asset Disclosure
Unlike other public servants, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are not legally mandated to publicly disclose their assets. While there have been internal resolutions encouraging judges to declare their wealth, these measures have remained largely voluntary and lack statutory backing.
Supreme Court’s Position on the Issue
In 1997, under the leadership of then Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma, the Supreme Court passed a resolution requiring judges to declare their assets, including real estate and investments held by them, their spouses, or dependents, to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). However, this resolution did not mandate public disclosure; it only required submission to the CJI.
A significant step was taken on September 8, 2009, when the full bench of the Supreme Court voluntarily decided to disclose judges’ assets on the court’s website. This move was considered a step towards judicial transparency. In November 2009, the declarations were made public on the Supreme Court’s official portal, with a few High Courts following suit.
However, this initiative was short-lived. Since 2018, the Supreme Court’s website has not been updated with asset declarations from its sitting judges. The current website only lists the names of 28 out of the 33 sitting judges who have submitted their declarations to the CJI, without publishing the actual details. Additionally, the declarations of former judges have been removed from public access.
ALSO READ: SUPREME COURT MONTHLY RECAP: MARCH 2025
High Courts and Asset Disclosure
India’s 25 High Courts collectively have 770 judges as of March 2025. However, only 97 judges from seven High Courts—Delhi, Punjab & Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madras, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, and Karnataka—have publicly disclosed their assets and liabilities. This accounts for less than 13% of all High Court judges.
The reluctance of many High Courts to embrace transparency is evident in their responses to requests for information. The Uttarakhand High Court, for instance, passed a resolution in 2012 explicitly opposing the disclosure of judges’ assets under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Similarly, the Allahabad High Court rejected an RTI request filed by media seeking asset details of its judges, arguing that such information does not fall within the scope of the RTI Act. Other High Courts, including Rajasthan, Bombay, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Gauhati, and Sikkim, have also denied similar RTI requests.
Legislative and Policy Efforts
Recognizing the opacity surrounding judicial asset declarations, the Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, and Law and Justice recommended in 2023 that a law be enacted to make asset disclosure mandatory for Supreme Court and High Court judges. However, no legislative action has been taken on this recommendation to date.
Comparing Judges with Other Public Servants
Unlike judges, public servants in India—including bureaucrats, ministers, and elected representatives—are subject to stricter disclosure norms:
- Bureaucrats and Government Officials: The RTI Act of 2005 has significantly enhanced transparency by requiring government officials to declare their assets annually to their respective cadre-controlling authorities. In many cases, these details are publicly accessible.
- Ministers and MPs: Since the United Progressive Alliance (UPA-2) government (2009-2014), Union Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have been required to submit their asset declarations to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), where they are publicly available. Many state governments have implemented similar policies for their ministers.
- Elected Representatives: Candidates contesting elections for Parliament, state Assemblies, or Legislative Councils must publicly declare their assets and liabilities as part of their nomination process. This requirement stems from a 2002 Supreme Court ruling aimed at enhancing electoral transparency. Even minor inaccuracies in these declarations can lead to disqualification of candidates.
Judicial Transparency: The Road Ahead
The debate over judicial asset disclosure highlights the tension between judicial independence and accountability. While the judiciary insists on maintaining its autonomy, the lack of transparency has fueled concerns over potential misconduct and corruption.
The Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that judges’ personal assets and liabilities are not “personal information” under the RTI Act was a landmark decision in favor of transparency. However, the absence of a mandatory disclosure mechanism continues to create inconsistencies and undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
The case of Justice Yashwant Varma has once again brought judicial accountability into focus. Unless concrete steps are taken—either through legislation or a renewed commitment from the judiciary itself—concerns over judicial opacity will persist. A well-defined statutory framework ensuring the mandatory and periodic public disclosure of judicial assets would be a crucial step in enhancing trust in India’s judicial system.
READ MORE REPORTS ON JUSTICE YASHWANT VERMA
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
