Cjar-Admin

Cjar-Admin

  • Joined: August 29, 2026
  • Articles: 214

To recuse or not to recuse… is that the question?

There have been a spate of recusals from the Indian Supreme Court in the past. However recent trends point towards confusing and differing standards for recusal of a judge. As public pressure now mounts towards a determination of this question, we remain with the question – When faced with a conflict of interest, what standard should judges across the country follow? This article probes whether judges should recuse or should they offer to recuse and indicates that the Supreme Court precedent and past history offer a clear guide.

SC Judges reveal asset on website

The Supreme Court on Monday, 2nd November, posted the Assets of Supreme Court judges on its website, clarifying that the declarations were being made on a voluntary basis only! This despite the fact that the decision to reveal assets on the website was taken on Aug. 26 in the backdrop of a raging controversy over resistance by the SC to answer a query regarding assets of judges. As this MailToday story reports, declarations lack information with some Judges giving only sketchy details and not mentioning the value of their movable and immovable assets.

Ghaziabad provident fund scam main accused dies under mysterious circumstances

Ashutosh Asthana, the main accused in the Ghaziabad provident fund scam, was found dead in his prison cell on 17th October 2009. It is known that he was clearly under a lot of pressure, as was evident from his statement in which he tried to change his first confessional statement as well as another affidavit through his lawyer in which he stated that he had given the second statement under pressure. In his S. 164 confessional statement before the Magistrate of Ghazibad court, he had confessed that of the 7 crore embezzled, he had given cash and gifts such as air conditioners, refrigerators, expensive clothes, jewellery and furniture to many judges including judges of the High Court and a Supreme Court judge.

Contempt of Court & the Conflict of Interest ControversyLast week there were newspaper reports that the Supreme Court has permitted the filing of a contempt petition against Mr. Prashant Bhushan for allegedly casting aspersions against some judges includi

Here's an excellent article by Manoj Mitta (Times of India) that unfolds interesting aspects of the Justice Kapadia conflict of interest controvesy and how this principle (also importantly adopted by the SC judges in 1997 through the Restatement of Judicial Values), has been completely violated by Justice Kapadia in his hearing and deciding this and other Sterlite cases.

The Dinakaran Imbroglio: Appointments and Complaints against Judges

The Dinakaran episode has brought to the surface the vexed problem of the arbitrary and totally unsatisfactory manner of selecting and appointing judges as well as the unresolved problem of dealing with complaints of misconduct and corruption against judges. In this bracing article Prashant Bhushan analyses these long simmering twin problems which lie at the heart of Judicial Accountablity

Appointment of Judges – the Justice Dinakaran Controversy

Public opinion is now stirring over the issue of appointment of judges, especially appointments made to the Supreme Court and High Courts in India, which remain largely arbitrary, adhoc and non-transparent. The man at the centre of the storm is the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, Justice Dinakaran, whose name has been recommended, along with four others by the SC collegium for elevation as judges of the SC. The controversy came to surface with a written complaint to the SC collegium by the Forum for Judicial Accountability. The first representation against Jusitce Dinakaran dated 9th September 2009 was regarding his amassing huge assets, corruption and serious irregularities. The Second representation listed further particulars with supporting material and the 3rd representation surfaced additional information regarding amassing of further properties and the exercise of judicial powers to decide cases in his own cause. The representations sent to SC collegium can be accessed here

Historic Ruling in favour of Transparency and Accountability – The Judges’Assets case

The Delhi High Court ruled on 2nd September 2009, that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a “public authority” within the meaning of the Right to Information Act and has to make public the information on assets declared to him by judges under the 1997 resolution of Chief Justices. The argument that such information has been collected under fiduciary capacity by the CJI was also held to be insubstantial.. The ruling by Justice Ravindra Bhat, which came on the Supreme Court's appeal against an almost identical order from the Central Information Commissioner (CIC), runs counter to the consistent stand of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan that the CJI could not be termed as a public authority under RTI Act

CJAR Public Statement on SC judges decision to put their assets on website

The decision of the Supreme Court judges to put their asset declarations on the Supreme Court website is a welcome first step towards transparency and accountability of judges in this country. It is also a tribute to the power of public opinion... However, this decision of the Supreme Court judges does not obviate the need for a law to make such public declarations compulsory. Indeed, the law must provide for an annual public declaration of assets and liabilities as well as income tax returns of all public servants, including judges

The Judges’ Assets Saga

In February 2009, the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform (CJAR) issued an Open Letter to Judges of all the High Courts and the Supreme Court to publicly declare their assets. It was urged through this letter, that by making a public declaration of their assets, Judges' would be setting an example of transparency in the country which would then be emulated by other public servants in the country. In response to this letter, Justice K. Kannan of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, perhaps the first judge to voluntarily make his assets public, sent an email to Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Convener, CJAR, stating, that while he held views against the demand for public declaration of judges' assets, he had no qualms in sharing his financial and property details, which he attached to the email. The correspondence between Mr. Prashant Bhushan and Justice Kannan can be accessed here. Further the document sent by Justice Kannan detailing his point of view can also be read here. open letter declaration of assets.pdf,650,600,link{/edocs}