In keeping with the ethics code that was created in 1997 and introduced this idea, Supreme Court judges will soon be required to reveal their assets to the public

In a pivotal decision made during a full court meeting on April 1, all Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice of India, will publicly disclose their assets. This decision follows the recent revelation of large sums of cash found at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma last month.

Judges, unlike government officials and politicians, are not required to publicly share this information, and many have chosen not to do so. This recent move could signify a significant change and serves as a reaffirmation of the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, a code of ethics established by the judiciary during a previous full court meeting.

This document continues to shape discussions regarding the conduct expected of judges while fulfilling their official responsibilities.

The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life aimed to establish a framework for institutional accountability on various matters. It included requirements for judges to declare their assets and investments to the Chief Justice and laid the foundation for an “in-house procedure” to investigate judges accused of violating these “values” or facing allegations of misconduct or corruption.

The adoption of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life provided a basis for all future initiatives aimed at ensuring judicial accountability. It consists of a numbered, non-exhaustive list of 16 principles outlining the values judges should uphold and the pitfalls they should avoid.

On the same day, the full court also decided to create an in-house procedure to address judges who fail to adhere to the universally accepted values of judicial life, including those specified in the code. A five-member committee developed this procedure in October of that year, which was officially adopted in 1999.

Importantly, they also mandated that all judges must disclose to the Chief Justice “all his/her assets in the form of real estate or investments… within a reasonable time of assuming office.”

After a comprehensive court meeting in 2009, the judges opted to publicly disclose their assets on a voluntary basis. Subsequently, in 2018, a Constitution Bench determined that judges' assets and liabilities do not qualify as "personal information" under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Invocation of 'values of judicial life'

The in-house procedure and the 'values' resolution are closely interconnected. A recent instance of this resolution being applied occurred when Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma last month. The combination of the inquiry process and the 'values' resolution offers a framework for holding judges accountable without resorting to impeachment, which requires a significantly higher threshold.

As articulated by the Supreme Court in a 1995 case involving allegations of financial misconduct against the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, there exists "a yawning gap between proved misbehaviour and bad conduct inconsistent with the high office." Actions that fall under the latter category of 'bad conduct' are detailed in the 'values' resolution.

The resolution was also referenced in 2014 when the Supreme Court reassessed the in-house inquiry process following a complaint of sexual harassment lodged by a woman additional district and sessions judge from Madhya Pradesh against a sitting High Court judge. The court emphasized that the procedure is designed "to take appropriate remedial action against judges who, through their actions or failures to act, do not adhere to the accepted values of judicial life," including the principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the resolution.