OpIndia: New Delhi: Sunday, March 23, 2025.
In 1997, the Supreme Court of India adopted a resolution requiring asset declarations by judges to be confidential. Over the years, the stance has been legally challenged under the RTI Act, with the Supreme Court consistently ruling against mandatory public disclosure. The court has cited personal information exemptions unless public interest is clear in the disclosure request.
On 21st March, reports
emerged that Delhi Fire Services found a pile of cash at Delhi High Court Judge
Yashwant Varma’s official residence during a firefighting operation. Reports
further suggested that Justice Varma was not at his residence at the time, and
an internal inquiry was initiated by the Supreme Court of India. Justice Varma
also faced transfer to Allahabad High Court.
However, within 24 hours, the Supreme Court issued a clarification that the collegium’s decision to transfer Justice Varma was not linked to the alleged incident. However, an internal inquiry was confirmed. Notably, DFS also denied finding any cash during the firefighting operation. Though the reports of finding cash at the High Court judge’s residence were declared mere rumours, it reignited the discussion over declaring assets by judges, which is currently only optional as per the Supreme Court’s resolution from 1997.
Judges in the Indian judiciary system are required to declare their assets. But there is a catch. It is done internally to the Chief Justice of India, and these asset details are available to the public only on a voluntary basis. That means, if a judge does not want the people of India to know about his or her assets, it is at their discretion.
The practice of internal declaration was established by a 1997 Supreme Court resolution. Public disclosure is not mandatory, which has been reflected by the court’s emphasis on privacy under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The stance has also been upheld in several key rulings, including in 2019, that allow disclosure only if a larger public interest is demonstrated.
Historical context, current status and controversy
In 1997, the Supreme Court of India adopted a resolution requiring asset declarations by judges to be confidential. Over the years, the stance has been legally challenged under the RTI Act, with the Supreme Court consistently ruling against mandatory public disclosure. The court has cited personal information exemptions unless public interest is clear in the disclosure request.
As of March 2025, the practice has continued. In 2023, a parliamentary committee recommended mandatory declarations by judges, but it did not lead to a fruitful result. In November 2024, government informed Rajya Sabha that there is no plan to make asset declaration mandatory for judges of the Supereme Court and High Courts.
The issue has remained controversial, as in 1991, the Supreme Court itself admitted that judges are public servants, however, later rulings, including 2008 contention of Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan and the 3rd January 2025 ruling by Lokpal suggested otherwise. For all other public servants like MPs, MLAs, etc., declaring assets is essential. So much so, a candidate cannot contest an election in India without declaring assets, and if the declaration is found to be dubious, the candidature can be challenged in a court of law.
Detailed history of Supreme Court rulings on judges’ asset declarations
On 7th May 1997, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of India passed a resolution that required all judges to declare their assets to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). This resolution stipulated that judges must declare their assets, including those held by their spouses and dependent family members. The declaration has to be made upon assuming office and whenever a substantial acquisition is made thereafter.
Notably, the CJI maintained in 1997 and in a 2009 judgment that the records are for internal purposes. The resolution was passed as a response to growing concerns about judicial integrity and the need for accountability. However, the resolution did not extend to public disclosure and set a precedent for internal transparency without granting public access.
The resolution was later adopted by the Delhi High Court on 26th July 1997, and it was reiterated on 8th July 2009, enforcing its application across the judiciary. The internal mechanism was said to be aimed at ensuring accountability of the judges. However, the opaque nature left the door open for future debates on public transparency that are still ongoing.
The RTI Act and judicial challenges
When the Right to Information Act was enacted in 2005, it intensified scrutiny on judicial transparency. The Act granted citizens the right to access information held by public authorities, including the judiciary. However, the Act has several exemptions for personal information that does not relate to public activity or interest, unless disclosure serves a larger public interest, as explained by Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The provision of exemptions became the focal point of legal battles over asset declarations by judges.
In 2009, activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal filed an RTI application in which he sought information on whether Supreme Court judges had declared their assets as per the 1997 resolution. When the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court denied the request citing exemptions, Agarwal decided to appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The CIC directed the Supreme Court to provide the information. CIC’s decision escalated the matter to the courts and highlighted the battle between transparency and privacy that was going on behind the curtains.
Key judicial rulings – Upholding non-disclosure
Interestingly, since then, the fight to make judges declare their assets publicly has been ongoing via different pleas, and every time the apex court has ruled against mandatory public disclosure of the assets. One of the pivotal cases was Subhash Chandra Agarwal’s in the Delhi High Court against the apex court. The court, on 2nd September 2009, said in its judgment that while information on whether declarations were made could be disclosed, the contents of the declarations were protected, reinforcing the confidentiality established in 1997.
Agarwal challenged the decision of the Delhi High Court in the apex court. The Supreme Court of India, in 2010, in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court and reiterated that asset declarations by judges are confidential and do not fall under the purview of public disclosure unless there is a clear public interest.
The fight continued for several years and, on 13th November 2019, in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, delivered a landmark decision. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, upheld the CIC’s order and the Delhi High Court’s judgment, requiring the Supreme Court CPIO to furnish information on whether judges had declared their assets.
However, the court clarified that the details of the assets themselves were not to be disclosed, as they constituted personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless disclosure served a larger public interest. The loophole hunting continued while declaring assets by the judges.
The court emphasised that the CJI does not generally hold asset declarations in a fiduciary capacity. However, each case has to be evaluated individually to determine if disclosure is necessary. The judgment offered no general finding on universal disclosure of asset details and left the decision to be made on a case-by-case basis, which experts believe provides a balance between public interest and privacy.
However, the question remains stagnant if other public servants are required to declare their assets, why not judges?
Implementation and voluntary disclosure
Following the ruling, the practice of declaring assets remains internal and confidential. Public disclosure is voluntary, and it is up to the judges to decide if they want to let the people know what they or their family members own. The Supreme Court’s official website lists judges who have submitted their declarations, noting that placing them on the website is on a voluntary basis. Interestingly, the page contains only names and no details of the assets.
Similarly, the Delhi High Court has published declarations in the public domain, but only 8 out of 39 judges have publicly declared their assets. Out of these, Justice Yashwant Varma’s file leads to a dummy PDF and not the actual declaration, considering it might be a clarical mistake.
Ongoing debates and recommendations
In 2023, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, in its report on judicial accountability, recommended that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts should mandatorily declare their assets, similar to politicians and bureaucrats. The committee argued that such declarations would enhance trust and credibility in the judiciary, stating, “Declaration of assets by the judges of the higher judiciary will only bring more trust and credibility into the system.” However, as of March 2025, no legislative changes have been made to mandate public disclosure.
Conclusion
It is high time that the Supreme Court stepped up and held itself to the same standards it expects from others. Judicial independence does not mean public accountability can be ignored. The argument of privacy cannot be selectively invoked. It must be noted that transparency is the bedrock of democracy. If politicians and bureaucrats must declare assets, judges too must lead by example instead of shielding themselves behind outdated resolutions.
In 1997, the Supreme Court of India adopted a resolution requiring asset declarations by judges to be confidential. Over the years, the stance has been legally challenged under the RTI Act, with the Supreme Court consistently ruling against mandatory public disclosure. The court has cited personal information exemptions unless public interest is clear in the disclosure request.
However, within 24 hours, the Supreme Court issued a clarification that the collegium’s decision to transfer Justice Varma was not linked to the alleged incident. However, an internal inquiry was confirmed. Notably, DFS also denied finding any cash during the firefighting operation. Though the reports of finding cash at the High Court judge’s residence were declared mere rumours, it reignited the discussion over declaring assets by judges, which is currently only optional as per the Supreme Court’s resolution from 1997.
Judges in the Indian judiciary system are required to declare their assets. But there is a catch. It is done internally to the Chief Justice of India, and these asset details are available to the public only on a voluntary basis. That means, if a judge does not want the people of India to know about his or her assets, it is at their discretion.
The practice of internal declaration was established by a 1997 Supreme Court resolution. Public disclosure is not mandatory, which has been reflected by the court’s emphasis on privacy under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The stance has also been upheld in several key rulings, including in 2019, that allow disclosure only if a larger public interest is demonstrated.
Historical context, current status and controversy
In 1997, the Supreme Court of India adopted a resolution requiring asset declarations by judges to be confidential. Over the years, the stance has been legally challenged under the RTI Act, with the Supreme Court consistently ruling against mandatory public disclosure. The court has cited personal information exemptions unless public interest is clear in the disclosure request.
As of March 2025, the practice has continued. In 2023, a parliamentary committee recommended mandatory declarations by judges, but it did not lead to a fruitful result. In November 2024, government informed Rajya Sabha that there is no plan to make asset declaration mandatory for judges of the Supereme Court and High Courts.
The issue has remained controversial, as in 1991, the Supreme Court itself admitted that judges are public servants, however, later rulings, including 2008 contention of Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan and the 3rd January 2025 ruling by Lokpal suggested otherwise. For all other public servants like MPs, MLAs, etc., declaring assets is essential. So much so, a candidate cannot contest an election in India without declaring assets, and if the declaration is found to be dubious, the candidature can be challenged in a court of law.
Detailed history of Supreme Court rulings on judges’ asset declarations
On 7th May 1997, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of India passed a resolution that required all judges to declare their assets to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). This resolution stipulated that judges must declare their assets, including those held by their spouses and dependent family members. The declaration has to be made upon assuming office and whenever a substantial acquisition is made thereafter.
Notably, the CJI maintained in 1997 and in a 2009 judgment that the records are for internal purposes. The resolution was passed as a response to growing concerns about judicial integrity and the need for accountability. However, the resolution did not extend to public disclosure and set a precedent for internal transparency without granting public access.
The resolution was later adopted by the Delhi High Court on 26th July 1997, and it was reiterated on 8th July 2009, enforcing its application across the judiciary. The internal mechanism was said to be aimed at ensuring accountability of the judges. However, the opaque nature left the door open for future debates on public transparency that are still ongoing.
The RTI Act and judicial challenges
When the Right to Information Act was enacted in 2005, it intensified scrutiny on judicial transparency. The Act granted citizens the right to access information held by public authorities, including the judiciary. However, the Act has several exemptions for personal information that does not relate to public activity or interest, unless disclosure serves a larger public interest, as explained by Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The provision of exemptions became the focal point of legal battles over asset declarations by judges.
In 2009, activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal filed an RTI application in which he sought information on whether Supreme Court judges had declared their assets as per the 1997 resolution. When the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court denied the request citing exemptions, Agarwal decided to appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The CIC directed the Supreme Court to provide the information. CIC’s decision escalated the matter to the courts and highlighted the battle between transparency and privacy that was going on behind the curtains.
Key judicial rulings – Upholding non-disclosure
Interestingly, since then, the fight to make judges declare their assets publicly has been ongoing via different pleas, and every time the apex court has ruled against mandatory public disclosure of the assets. One of the pivotal cases was Subhash Chandra Agarwal’s in the Delhi High Court against the apex court. The court, on 2nd September 2009, said in its judgment that while information on whether declarations were made could be disclosed, the contents of the declarations were protected, reinforcing the confidentiality established in 1997.
Agarwal challenged the decision of the Delhi High Court in the apex court. The Supreme Court of India, in 2010, in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court and reiterated that asset declarations by judges are confidential and do not fall under the purview of public disclosure unless there is a clear public interest.
The fight continued for several years and, on 13th November 2019, in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, delivered a landmark decision. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, upheld the CIC’s order and the Delhi High Court’s judgment, requiring the Supreme Court CPIO to furnish information on whether judges had declared their assets.
However, the court clarified that the details of the assets themselves were not to be disclosed, as they constituted personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless disclosure served a larger public interest. The loophole hunting continued while declaring assets by the judges.
The court emphasised that the CJI does not generally hold asset declarations in a fiduciary capacity. However, each case has to be evaluated individually to determine if disclosure is necessary. The judgment offered no general finding on universal disclosure of asset details and left the decision to be made on a case-by-case basis, which experts believe provides a balance between public interest and privacy.
However, the question remains stagnant if other public servants are required to declare their assets, why not judges?
Implementation and voluntary disclosure
Following the ruling, the practice of declaring assets remains internal and confidential. Public disclosure is voluntary, and it is up to the judges to decide if they want to let the people know what they or their family members own. The Supreme Court’s official website lists judges who have submitted their declarations, noting that placing them on the website is on a voluntary basis. Interestingly, the page contains only names and no details of the assets.
Similarly, the Delhi High Court has published declarations in the public domain, but only 8 out of 39 judges have publicly declared their assets. Out of these, Justice Yashwant Varma’s file leads to a dummy PDF and not the actual declaration, considering it might be a clarical mistake.
Ongoing debates and recommendations
In 2023, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, in its report on judicial accountability, recommended that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts should mandatorily declare their assets, similar to politicians and bureaucrats. The committee argued that such declarations would enhance trust and credibility in the judiciary, stating, “Declaration of assets by the judges of the higher judiciary will only bring more trust and credibility into the system.” However, as of March 2025, no legislative changes have been made to mandate public disclosure.
Conclusion
It is high time that the Supreme Court stepped up and held itself to the same standards it expects from others. Judicial independence does not mean public accountability can be ignored. The argument of privacy cannot be selectively invoked. It must be noted that transparency is the bedrock of democracy. If politicians and bureaucrats must declare assets, judges too must lead by example instead of shielding themselves behind outdated resolutions.
.JPG)
.JPG)
