Now that the Supreme Court registrar has moved the Delhi High Court against the Central Information Commission’s order that assets of judges be made public under the law on Right to Information (RTI), the matter will be settled by the judiciary on the basis of its interpretation of the law — on whether judges come under the definition of ‘public authority’. But there is a larger public interest that often goes beyond the issue of definitions in the law. After all, if the assets of the Prime Minister and his council of ministers, indeed of all parliamentarians and state legislators, and even of those who aspire to these positions, are to be made public, it would seem incongruous if the assets of judges are kept out of the public domain—even if that is what the law allows.
The political class is what makes policy in the country and is responsible for its execution — if putting the details of their assets in the public domain does not create a problem, it is difficult to see how putting out similar details with regard to judges would cause a problem. The idea behind the public declaration of assets for public servants, in the broadest sense of the term, is to see if these assets are disproportionate to their known income — surely doing the same for the judiciary will only help improve its credibility, especially at a time when, as in Punjab, it is coming under attack. It is, of course, ironic that while the Chief Justice of India should cite an “informal resolution” of May 7, 1997 (that judges of the Supreme Court should declare their assets to the CJI) on the matter, Justice JS Verma who was the CJI when that resolution was passed, has been quoted as saying the details of the assets should be made public. “A judge’s life should be an open book, open to public scrutiny. Why hide details of assets?”, he told Indian Express.
This opposition comes on the heels of another long-running dispute between the courts and the political class on how judges are to be appointed. While the political class is in favour of reverting to the situation in which the executive had some say in the appointment and postings of judges, the judiciary is not in favour of this. Once again, the Chief Justice probably has a good reason for resisting the change — it could arguably open the judicial system to the transfer-posting racket that plagues the government. The flip side, however, is that the judicial system is effectively a closed shop, with no one outside the system in a position to even know what is happening inside. In a democracy, the best solution for many problems is plain sunlight—in other words, transparency. Judges, who enjoy a degree of public credibility that is no longer enjoyed by the legislature and the executive, should be keen to protect that credibility through transparency.