Email
Print
ShareThe Supreme Court has raised the bar for transparency by detailing the cash and property that each of the 21 judges owns and placing the information in the public domain. It took some doing to reach this point, since the judiciary was for long resistant to the idea. But once one or two judges stepped forward with their declarations, it became inevitable.
We now know that going by their declared assets more than a majority of judges of the highest court in the land are modestly well-off. Their assets seem to range from a worth of a few hundred thousands to a few million rupees and they are to be found in the form of houses, plots, mutual fund shares, jewellery and provident fund savings.
This cannot however be treated as the closure of the issue. The scrutiny of judges' assets will be a continuous process. It cannot be claimed that property disclosures at one point of time should be taken to mean the end of the matter. The judges will have to get used to the fact that their private property is not just a matter of public knowledge but that it would attract public attention as to what is being done with it as well. New acquisitions and expansion of present assets will be under the scanner.
Probity of the judges has become a major issue of concern because of the widespread perception that judiciary has been exposed to corruption in the same way as the rest of society and that consequently it endangers the social fabric. The ongoing controversy about Justice Dinakaran and his alleged land holdings has further underlined this concern.
People want the assurance that individuals entrusted with the responsibility of delivering justice are not sullied in any way.The declaration of assets must be seen as part of the democratisation of the judiciary. It is only a beginning. The judges are accountable too in a democracy though in a different way than the directly elected legislators in Parliament and state assemblies.
This lies in being transparent not only in the way that justice is done but also in the lives of those who deliver justice. The misgiving that democracy implies popular pressure and that it compromises the high standards of judiciary is not tenable. The judges have now acknowledged that the high standards they apply to those who come before them are applicable to their own lives. Such declarations should now become the norm and not
remain voluntary any longer.
