Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said: “The CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act and the CJI holds the information pertaining to asset declarations in his capacity as Chief Justice; that office is a ‘public authority’ under the Act and is covered by its provisions. Information pertaining to declarations given to the CJI and the contents of such declaration are information’ and subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.”

Noted jurists K K Venugopal, Shanti Bhushan and P P Rao said the verdict on a "highly sensitive" issue was "contitutionally correct" where for the first time a decision has been given against the superior court.

Balakrishnan warned that several people wanted to delay the conclusion of criminal cases. “(But) Judges are supposed to prevent the abuse of law by those who want to delay the delivery of judgment,” he added, alluding to the judiciary’s concern at the high number of pending cases.

After judges in Delhi and Kerala, judges of the Himachal Pradesh High Court have also decided to follow the footsteps of Supreme Court justices and make their assets public, a court official said on Sunday.

"The office of the chief justice is privy to so much of information like privileged communication between various constitutional authorities, complaints against judges etc. How can all this information be disclosed (under the RTI Act)?" he said in New Delhi.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform (CJAR) and senior lawyers have welcomed Supreme Court judges’ decision to put their asset declarations on the court website.

Judges assets, Challenges ahead; Hindustan Times, Aug, 28, 2009

How it began, The men who changed it all, Hindustan Times, Aug, 27, 2009

The judges of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, will make public the statements of assets they declared at the time of their appointment to the Supreme Court and subsequent additions, if any.

The two high court judges, who broke the silence in the judiciary on the assets controversy, have come up with conflicting views on the stand taken by CJI K G Balakrishnan.

Faced with all-round criticism of the higher judiciary over its reluctance to make judges assets public, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan says if individual judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court want to make public their assets, they are free to do so.

Barely three weeks after the government’s failed attempt in Parliament to keep the wealth details of judges secret, a Punjab and Haryana High Court judge has made public his family’s assets.

The contention of Karnataka High Court Judge D V Shylendra Kumar that the Chief Justice of India can’t speak on behalf of the judiciary regarding declaration of assets by the judges and that the judges should declare their assets has found strong support in the legal circles.

It is a matter of utmost paradox that the chief justice of the most powerful Supreme Court in the world should be expressing apprehension for the safety and security of the judges of the superior courts in this country by saying that revealing the particulars of assets of the judges and throwing open the information to the public domain may result in harassment to judges and in turn prevent the judges from performing their duties without fear or favour.

A Karnataka high court judge’s public disagreement with the Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan over making judicial assets public only shows how widespread is concern within and without the judiciary.

The authority of the chief justice of India (CJI), perceived by many as the big boss of judiciary, stands clarified as legal luminaries unanimously supported the stance of Karnataka high court justice DV Shailendra Kumar that a CJI can’t be a spokesperson for the entire fraternity of judges.

In the first open dissent by a sitting judge against the Chief Justice of India’s stand on declaration of assets by the higher judiciary, Justice D V Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka High Court has said that “it’s a misnomer to think that the judges of the superior courts are not ready to disclose their assets.

In a post on SpicyIP, I reviewed a big ticket compulsory licensing dispute involving the sound recording industry on the one hand, and radio stations on the other. I went on to reflect on the competence of the current Copyright Board that is adjudicating this highly complex dispute. And asked if the Chairman of the Copyright Board, Dr Raghbir Singh was sufficiently qualified to merit his post.

In addressing the issue of the massive backlog of cases pending disposal in India’s courts, the Prime Minister has squarely put the put the ball in the court of the judiciary.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s idea to encourage retired judges to decide pending cases has been widely appreciated at the National Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers of various states recently held in Delhi.

Majority of high courts are strongly opposed to the introduction of merit in appointment of judges, and want the present selection procedure by a committee of senior most judges to continue.

The Law Commission headed by former Supreme Court judge A R Lakshmanan has, in a fresh report, reiterated its earlier recommendation for a change in the system of appointment of judges of the higher judiciary.

Expressing serious concern over the huge number of pending court cases, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Sunday called upon the judiciary and the executive to work together to eliminate the “scourge.

Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan said that the judiciary was not against declaration of judges' assets and that it was ready to "implicitly" obey Parliament if it passes a law in this regard.

Ahead of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s address to the chief justices’ conference on Sunday, top judges set the tone for the event in their closed-door conclave by patting themselves on the back, and blaming the government for not providing adequate funds for the judiciary.

A two-day conference of India’s top judges beginning in New Delhi on Friday will discuss 21 important issues except corruption in the judiciary and judges’ reluctance to declare their assets.

Though RTI is not on its agenda, the two-day conference of chief justices starting on Friday will be held under the shadow of the embarrassing withdrawal in the recent session of Parliament of the Bill seeking to keep the declarations of assets by judges out of the public domain.

Making the point that courts do not have a “magic wand” to do away with pendency of cases, the Supreme Court , after examining figures for both civil and criminal cases over seven years, has for the first time assessed that the judiciary needs “1,547 High Court judges and 23,207 subordinate court judges, only to clear the backlog in one year.

No doubt about it, judges are fashioned for a nobler cause. Our higher judiciary selfselects new recruits, contempt laws ensure that even truth is not a defence, and impeaching a senior judge is so tortuous, that in Independent India, not one has been sacked. Often termed the world’s most powerful, our high courts and Supreme Court have earned their independence — they command respect like few other institutions. But this freedom demands a stricter standard.

Forced by the Opposition to shelve the judges’ assets Bill, Union Minster for Law and Justice M Veerappa Moily has ruled out fresh deliberations with the Chief Justice of India on the issue.

The recent episode over the Judges (Declaration of Assets & Liabilities) Bill is a reminder of just how difficult genuine judicial reform is going to be. In some ways, the issue of declaring assets is the simplest item on judicial reform. Judges’ legitimate concerns that their disclosures not be used as a tool of harassment can be easily handled without having to exempt them from public disclosure.

It is not the law minister alone who was rebuffed in the Rajya Sabha on August 3, when the House would not grant him leave to introduce the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill 2009.

The opposition has done the right thing by forcing the government to defer the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill.

Behind the angry chorus of the political establishment today —against judges’ assets not being made public — and the judiciary’s apparent reluctance is a telling reversal of roles.

There was just a hint from the Congress here on Monday that it would be willing to try and evolve a political consensus on the deferred Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill before it was introduced, after the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Left insisted that the Bill would be meaningless unless the controversial confidentiality clause was removed.

Politicians today united against a bill that would prevent judges’ assets from being made public, forcing the government to back off from tabling it.

Government on Monday deferred the introduction of Judges' Assets Bill in Rajya Sabha after the Opposition including the Left Front objected to the Bill.

The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform has called for effective consultation before the proposed Bill making it mandatory for High Court and Supreme Court judges to declare their assets was finalised.

Eminent jurists, social activists and human rights activists came together on Friday to demand substantive change in the Centre's proposed legislation on declaration of assets by judges of the higher judiciary saying it would serve no purpose unless they were forced to make it public.

In India from times immemorial Judges have been held in highest esteem and revered as super humans. But of late there are instances of corruption infecting the judicial system also. There is a great danger that such instances can erode the faith that people have in the Judiciary. As a result judicial decisions might be looked upon with suspicion.