On September 2, when a single judge of the Delhi High Court directed a beam of moral searchlight at the Supreme world saw a group of embarrassed brethren trying to ward off the harsh glare.

The ruling of the Delhi High Court in the CPIO versus S.C. Aggarwal case and the open letter by a group of jurists to the Chief Justice of India have brought to focus critical issues of transparency in the judiciary.

India's villages await justice

“The public injury which may be caused by appointment of a Judge lacking in integrity would be infinitely more than the public injury which may result from non-appointment of a competent Judge possessing integrity.”

The public loses respect for the judicature if there is one corrupt judge who can
discredit the high institution.

Public pressure, the principled position taken by certain judges and one ruling by the Delhi High Court have compelled public disclosure of assets by judges. But this is certainly not the end of the serious problem of a lack of judicial accountability.

THE Indian judiciary is considered the most powerful in the world by many observers. In terms of standards of accountability, however, the higher judiciary in India is viewed as the least accountable. The August 26 resolution of the Supreme Court’s Full Court in favour of disclosure of judges’ assets on the court’s website is a result of a sustained campaign by various civil society groups and activists and the sheer force of public opinion, which viewed with suspicion the judiciary’s reluctance to disclose judges’ assets.

The decision to declare assets is a big victory. Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan tells SHOMA CHAUDHURY what else is rotting in our judiciary It’s great judges have agreed to declare assets. But will it really help? Politicians do it too.

Let me begin by commending Justice S. Ravindra Bhat of the Delhi high court for his excellent judgment of September 2, 2009 in the judges’ assets case, the quality of which would do credit to anyone at the highest level in the judicial hierarchy.

These past weeks have been difficult times for the Supreme Court, particularly the Chief Justice of India (CJI), over making public the details of judges’ assets. Reacting to the CJI’s statements rejecting such disclosure, Justice D.V. Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka High Court wrote a forthright article in a newspaper stating the CJI did not speak for the many judges of integrity in India.

I AM AN insipid person to talk to and no celebrity to deserve a feature. My website gives you a glimpse of my interests and my High Court website has some placid news about me.

The power of three against one: that’s how the battle of their lordships, India’s chief justices past and present, has panned out over the ongoing row over the judiciary making their assets public.

The controversy relating to the disclosure of judges’ assets has achieved, for the moment, a happy resolution. A vigorous debate among the public, former judges, leaders of the Bar, Bar Associations, High Court judges and last but not the least the Chief Justice of India — is a sign of a vibrant democracy. The method and content of the disclosure are still opaque and may require further debate.

The Prime Minister and the Chief Justice demand more number of courts — in their thousands. This is part of the pathological arrears syndrome. The truth is: more courts, more arrears, more lazy judges, more examples of Parkinson’s Law and Peter Principle. The real cause of the escalating arrears is the absence of accountability and transparency.

The UPA 100 day program includes a road-map for judicial reform. Recently, at the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers, both the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India talked about the need to ensure speedy justice.

D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR Posted online: Saturday , Aug 22, 2009 at 0323 hrs 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. He has also expressed his fear that this may impair the independence of judges and affect their functioning.

Judges at India's Supreme Court have agreed to make public details about their financial assets following an intense public debate. Analyst Manoj Mitta says a lot more needs to be done to make India's judiciary transparent.

Conflict of interest legislation ensures that when government officials decide issues of public policy, their personal interests do not cloud their judgment -- that their decisions will be based solely on what is best for the public as a whole. Conflict of interest laws achieve this objective in two ways.

Anyone familiar with India would be aware of the remarkable paradoxes of the country characterized by obscene wealth in the hands of a few “billionaires” among whom are 4 of the ten richest men in the world, existing side by side with appalling poverty where more than 78% of the population lives on less than Rs. 20 (45 cents) per day.

If the Indian judicature is not to degenerate into a jejune institutional caricature, democracy must assert itself, and it must cease to be a simulacrum of Westminster judges with judicial wigs, jackets and robed apparel. The truth about the robed brethren must be an open book.