A few days ago, a fire ended up revealing much more than it consumed. A fire reported at the residence of Delhi High Court’s Justice Yashwant Varma led firefighters to discover a “huge pile of cash” at the scene. One would expect that the revelation of vast and unexplained sums of money at the residence of a sitting judge would trigger an immediate, serious inquiry. Instead, the judge was peculiarly, and swiftly, transferred back to the Allahabad High Court by the Supreme Court Collegium (at the time of writing, the Collegium is still to publish its transfer resolution). The effectiveness of this manoeuvre is dubious, and it reinforces the age-old tactic of “when confronted with a problem too uncomfortable to confront, simply move it elsewhere”.
This episode has re-ignited a far more pressing debate on the fundamentals of India’s judiciary. Where exactly does independence end and accountability begin? In theory, India has several mechanisms to ensure judicial accountability. However, these mechanisms are either barely utilised or too cumbersome to put into effect.
Story continues below this ad
For starters, the existing system of appointing judges through a collegium has been at the centre of a longstanding debate. This system is not rooted in the Constitution, which calls for government intervention, but has been established by the Supreme Court (SC) via its judgments. This is unlike what is followed in most democracies because of its clandestine nature. The Collegium publishes no official criteria and there are no recorded discussions or public explanations for appointments, promotions or transfers. For instance, when a judge is overlooked for elevation to the SC, there is no obligation on the Collegium to provide any reasoning. This secrecy only fires suspicions that judicial appointments are based on personal loyalties, ideological alignments and internal politics rather than merit.
We came close to a reform in 2015 with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) — a body that sought to introduce transparency and broader representation in judicial appointments. The NJAC, passed overwhelmingly by Parliament and ratified by 20 state legislatures, ensured a balance between judicial independence and democratic accountability. However, soon after it was passed, the reform was struck down by the SC on account of judicial independence.
Aside from appointments to the judiciary, elevations of advocates as “Senior Advocates” are also conspicuously conducted behind closed doors. There is no reasoning provided as to why an advocate is elevated or held back. The elevation procedure is routinely criticised for being driven by corridor politics, creating unexplained exclusivity.
Story continues below this ad
Another hotly debated issue is the public disclosure of assets by members of the judiciary. Under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, public servants are mandatorily required to declare their assets and liabilities, and those of their spouses and dependent children. “Public servant” includes anyone that is in government service or is remunerated by the government for the performance of a public duty. While this includes MPs and military personnel, it also includes persons empowered by law to discharge judicial functions. Therefore, it applies to judges across the spectrum.
While judges do disclose their assets, such disclosures, unlike of other public servants, are not automatically available to the public. Official data from 2024 reveals that out of 749 judges currently posted in 25 high courts, the assets of only 98 are available in the public domain. The difference in treatment given to public officials and the judiciary undoubtedly creates a class within a class, the existence of which is unfounded.
Several countries mandate public disclosure of assets by judges. In the US, post the Watergate scandal, financial disclosure reports were made compulsory under the Ethics in Government Act. Accordingly, the financial disclosures of judges and their relatives are available for public access on the United States Courts website. Importantly, judges are also protected by duly cautioning the public that the use of these financial reports for any unlawful purpose or commercial purpose other than by news and communication media for dissemination to the general public is unlawful. In August 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union too, accepted that the publication of data of family members is mandated if asset declarations concerned proper public servants, which included “persons elected to office, State officials, judges”.
The purpose of these disclosures is not just to track wealth accumulation, but also to determine issues such as conflicts of interest. Considering this, recommendations by India’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice and the Centre to mandate public judicial asset disclosures are not out of the ordinary. It is telling that these proposals remain stalled, pending a decision from the SC.
It is broadly recognised that while judicial asset disclosures should be accessible to the public, appropriate safeguards can be maintained. Specifically, sensitive personal information may be redacted, and access protocols may require requesters to provide identifying information, such as name, address, and identification, creating an accountability mechanism that deters misuse while preserving the transparency that underpins public trust in the judiciary. Nevertheless, members of the judiciary continue to resist public disclosure requirements for reasons that remain inadequately justified.
most read
Judges wield extraordinary powers. They rule on government policies, corporate disputes and fundamental rights. The seriousness of their duty mandates propriety. This incident must then serve not only as a reminder but also as a catalyst for implementing long-overdue judicial reforms. The judiciary requires a robust disciplinary framework with clear protocols such as those that mandate formal inquiries into allegations of misconduct rather than resolving them through quiet transfers. Simultaneously, the judicial appointment process demands transformation. Transparent metrics for elevations must be established, and the Collegium must publish detailed reasoning. Asset declarations by judges, implemented with appropriate privacy safeguards, should be seen not as intrusions but as essential instruments of transparency.
While these recommendations are sound, their implementation and effectiveness depend ultimately on judicial sanction. Without this, a legal arrangement, no matter how comprehensive, will be pointless. Meaningful reform must ultimately come from within the judiciary itself. At this juncture the truth is inescapable. There is no independence without integrity, and legal mechanisms that ensure probity do not threaten judicial autonomy — they safeguard it.
The writer is Managing Partner, Parinam Law Associates and Vice President, Mumbai BJP
