Judicial Secrets Act?

The presumed logic behind the Judges Assets Bill, which was passed by the Cabinet on Thursday and will be tabled in Parliament next week, is transparency. However, on Saturday, Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan ruled out making information about the judges’ property public, stating that the judiciary could then be “harassed through frivolous petitions.” He also confirmed that the judges would not oppose the draft Bill, and the information they disclose about their and their dependants’ assets will remain confidential. “The Bill will be introduced in the Lok Sabha latest by Tuesday,” said TK Vishwanathan, law secretary.

Under the version of the Bill passed by the Cabinet, high court judges would disclose their assets to their respective chief justices, while the apex court judges would give annually the details of their assets to the Chief Justice of India, who, in turn would forward it to the president along with the details of their own assets. But the Bill also lays down that the information will be kept confidential — that is, not made available to the public — making it evident that the judiciary’s lobbying with the law ministry to keep it out of the RTI Act has been successful. 

The ‘watered down’ draft of the Bill has caused an outcry among legal luminaries as well as civil society groups, who claim that the very purpose of the Bill — eliminating corruption by promoting transparency — is being undermined.

Under the provisions of the Bill, the ‘confidential’ information about judges’ assets can be made public only in case of any probe into judicial misconduct.

Former Chief Justice of India J S Verma, who had made assets declaration for judges mandatory in 1997, has called the new bill “a joke.” He said, “It was Supreme Court judges who made it mandatory for candidates contesting elections to declare their assets. Then why should they not do the same themselves? Only if they (judges) have something to conceal, they’ll want secrecy.”

Defending the Bill, the Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan said, “These are not subject to provisions of the RTI as we don’t want judges to be harassed.” But he added that “failure to declare or declaring false details can be presumed to be misconduct on the part of the judge and this can be a ground for removal of the judge.”

Leading lawyers and noted constitutional experts such as Fali S Nariman, Shanti Bhushan, Anil Divan and former Justice Rajinder Sachar recently signed a declaration demanding that the assets of Judges be made public under the proposed law. “Unless the declaration of assets by judges or other public servants are made known to the people, such declaration will not serve any purpose,” they said. “Only a public and annual declaration of assets as is done by all Federal Judges of the US, including the Judges of the US Supreme Court, would ensure that the objectives of transparency though this proposed Bill is achieved,” said the statement.

However, Delhi HC justice S Ravindra Bhat, who examined the issue of assets disclosure raised by the SC judges, had observed judges should not be equated with lawmakers such as  MPs and MLAs in the context of disclosing their assets, as revelation of this information could be misused. But former MN Venkatachaliah doesn’t agree with this perception. “In the Justice Veeraswamy corruption case, the SC had held that judges are public servants,” he said. After its introduction in Parliament, the Bill is likely to be referred to a parliamentary panel for detailed examination.

The process of enacting the law to ensure greater transparency about the judges’ assets was set in motion after a query posed to the Supreme Court registry seeking disclosure of the assets of the apex court judges. The query had been posed under RTI Act, 2005.
As the apex court registry refused to divulge the information, the registry’s decision was challenged before the Central Information Commission (CIC), which ruled in favour of the applicant. The apex court subsequently went in appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the CIC ruling. The lawsuit is still pending at the high court.