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

Read the Mail Today feature as M.C. Rajan in Chennai tracks Chief Justice Dinkaran's disproportionate property details and other instances of judicial misconduct while also detailing other judges caught in controversy... all of which exerting pressure on the need to lift the veil of secrecy over judicial appointments

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

Running out rightly contrary to the refusal of Judges of the High Courts and Supreme Court to publicly declare their assets, Justice, DV Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka High Court, powerfully expresses his views against the Chief Justice of India speaking on behalf of the country’s judiciary as well as Justice Kumar’s right to express his views freely and without fear. His articles in the New Indian Express can be read here and here. Justice Kumars asset details as posted on a website can be accessed here.

Former Law Minister, Mr. Ram Jethmalani asserts that judges must disclose their assets to maintain public confidence in the courts more

The Law Commission of India, Chaired by Justice Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, in its REPORT NO. 230 focuses on REFORMS IN THE JUDICIARY, offering some suggestions. The report was submitted to the Union Minister of Law and Jusitce, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India by the Law Commission on the 5th of August, 2009. Copy of the report can be found

Former Chief Justice of India reitirates - Judicial accountability requires transparency. Public knowledge of the antecedents, assets and liabilities of the judge, spouse and dependents is necessary for adjudging the judge’s conduct and suitability for the performance of official duties.

Renowned Jurist Fali S. Nariman states in this article that if the credibility of the higher judiciary is to be restored, as he believes it must — since without the higher judiciary our Constitution simply cannot work — it is essential that every judge of the Supreme Court set an example and voluntarily make a public disclosure of his (or her) assets on the website of the Supreme Court, law or no law.

A Performance Commission to investigate delinquent judges is essential if egregious judicial blunders are to be minimised. Read this thought provoking artcile where Justice Krishna Iyer dwells on the limits of judicial conduct in the present day context.

{edocs}Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill 2009.pdf,650,600,link{/edocs}

On 11th July 2009, strategic planning meeting of the members of CJAR was held. In this meeting, future course of action of the Campaign was discussed. In this meeting, apart from other issues, recently passed legislation "Gram Nyalalaya Act", recommendation of 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission on Judicial Reforms were also discussed. Minutes of the meeting can be found here. Gram Nyayalaya Act, as passed by parliament can be found here. It can be compared with the Draft Gram Nyalayaya Bill as introduced in Rajya Sabha. Draft Bill can be found here. Excerpts from recommendations of 2nd ARC can be found here. In the meeting, status report of the activities of the CJAR during last year was also presented.

India has an independent judiciary. Nonetheless, the gaps between codified law and grassroots reality are wide. The Delhi-based Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms wants matters to change. Prashant Bhushan, one of its leaders, explained what is wrong with the courts and what could make a difference in a D+C/E+Z-interview.

In the reply to an application filed under Right to Information Act, Central Government has admitted that pursuant to the complaint from CJAR regarding undue monetary advantage to the family members of Justice Sabharwal due to his controversial orders on sealing the business establishments in Delhi; CBI has been directed to investigate the matter. CBI is investigaing various aspects of the case, including the allegation of misuse of public office by the family members of Justice Sabharwal.

Recently, in a talk in South Asian Studies Department, Princeton, Prashant Bhushan delivered a talk on "Lack of Judicial Accountability in India". In this talk, Prashant has pointed how judiciary has acqired self-perpetrating oligarchy and has bocome powerful. He has also pointed out as to how the judiciary has been making attempts to keep itself cocooned and has dismissed all attempts to make it accountable.

Recently, in a talk in George Washington University Law School, Washington, Prashant Bhushan presented a carefully researched paper titled Sacrificing Human Rights and Environmental Rights at the Altar of “Development”. In this paper, Prashant has pointed how “insensitive” the judiciary is, towards the poor. Indian courts have failed to protect the socio-economic rights of the common people of India who constitute the vast majority of the Indian population. The main reason behind the insensitiveness of judiciary is that the higher judiciary in India invariably comes from the elite section of the society nd it has become a self-appointing and self-perpetuating oligarchy, says Prashant.