Dear Justice Chandrachud,
While researching the topic of probity in democratic governance, I was looking at the markers of financial integrity in Indian judiciary. Tumult of democratic governance, in a context of low capacity and weak accountabilities of institutions, is often steadied by a judiciary the society trusts. Society’s trust in judiciary is anchored by financial integrity and public perception of neutrality. I find obfuscation and opacity in financial integrity of Indian higher judiciary appalling. As a citizen, I would like to assure myself that it is otherwise, and have therefore two questions to ask you and your brother judges:
1. Why are you and your brother/sister judges in Indian Supreme Court and High Courts not declaring your assets and liabilities, as is mandated for all public servants, candidates for election to the Parliament, and elected Members of Parliament.
2. Why are you and your brother/sister judges hesitant to dispel the growing perceptions of nepotism and opacity in selection and appointment of judges and incestuous nexus between lawyers and judges.
Let me provide a brief rationale for my questions:
On the first question. It is mandatory for the Government of India officers to declare their moveable and immoveable assets and liabilities immediately upon appointment and every year thereafter. The declaration covers the officer, spouse, and dependent children. The Government of Uttar Pradesh has even withheld promotion of government employees on non-submission of the declaration.
Declaration of assets and liabilities by the Members of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha are made public in summary form on their respective websites. Honorable Supreme Court in its judgement in 2018 made it mandatory for candidates contesting elections to declare the sources of income for them, their spouses and dependents to ensure probity among politicians, and expressed concern that “the trend of undue accretion of assets of legislators and their associates is an indicator of the beginning of a failing democracy”[1].
Honorable Supreme Court itself has thwarted all past efforts to bring transparency in financial conduct of judges. The 1997 Resolution adopted by the Honorable Supreme Court making asset disclosure mandatory for judges was not followed by judges of Supreme Court itself and by most High Courts. In 2009 Honorable Supreme Court did a dishonorable thing by watering down the Resolution and made asset-declaration voluntary. Two other attempts: an aborted Bill in Parliament in 2009 “Declaration of Assets and Liabilities by Judges of Supreme Court, High Courts, and Subordinate Court Judges” and an effort of Central Information Commissioner to bring asset-declaration by judges under the Right to Information Act blocked by Supreme Court and High Court judgements, have failed to kindle the conscience of honorable judges to meet the same standards of probity and integrity they demand in their judgements day after day. Table 1 provides a snapshot of abysmal status of declaration of assets by honorable judges.
Table 1: Declaration of assets by the judges of the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts
Data as of 31st July 2024: Source respective websites and profiles of judges
Sl. No. | Court/(Number of Judges) | Number of Judges declaring assets | Names of Judges declaring assets | % of Judges declaring assets |
| Supreme Court of India |
|
|
|
| 28 | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
| High Courts |
|
|
|
1 | Allahabad (58 plus 26 in Lucknow bench, total 84) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
2 | Andhra Pradesh (28) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
3 | Chattisgarh (15) | 2 | Hon'ble Justices Goutam Bhaduri and Sanjay K. Agrawal | 13 |
4 | Delhi (39) | 11 | See the list in the footnote π
| 28 |
5 | Gujarat (29) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
6 | Guwahati (24) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
7 | Himachal Pradesh (12) | 10 | See the list in the footnote Ω | 83 |
8 | Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh (15) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
9 | Jharkhand (18) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
10 | Karnataka (50) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
11 | Kerala (34) | 2 judges declared assets | Hon'ble Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar, and Satish Ninan | 6 |
12 | Kolkatta (44) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
13 | Madhya Pradesh (36) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
14 | Madras (63) | 5 | Hon'ble Justices N. Sathish Kumar, Abdul Quddhose, M Dhandapani, P T Asha, Bharatha Chkaravarty. | 8 |
15 | Manipur (4) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
16 | Meghalya (4) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
17 | Bombay (66) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
18 | Odisha (19) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
19 | Patna (33) | Website not accessible | Website not accessible | 0 |
20 | Punjab and Haryana (55) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
21 | Rajasthan (33) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
22 | Sikkim (3) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
23 | Telangana (28) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
24 | Tripura (5) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
25 | Uttarakhand (7) | 0 | No names mentioned on the website | 0 |
π Hon’ble Chief Justice Manmohan, Hon’ble Justices Rajiv Shakdher, Suresh Kumar Kait, Vibhu Bhakru, Yashwant Varma, Rekha Palli, Pratibha M Singh, Navin Chawla, Hari Shankar, Saurabh Bannerji, Girish Kathpalia.
Ω Hon’ble Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Vivek Singh Thakur, Ajay Mohan Goel, Sandeep Sharma, Jyotsna Dua, Satyen Vaidya, Sushil Kukreja, Virendar Singh, B C Negi, Rakesh Kainthla.
With zeros splashed all over the Table 1 on number of judges declaring assets, it is not hard to see why Indian public considers judiciary to be corrupt. The Supreme Court leads by example in lack of transparency. Out of 776 judges only 30 (4%) have declared their assets. If we add other senior judicial officers, the situation would be even more abysmal. Thanks to the High Courts of Himachal (83%), Delhi, Chattisgarh, Kerala and Madras where many judges have responded to the call of their conscience, there is hope. In July 2024 the Supreme Court admitted a contempt petition against Union government for not implementing SC’s judgement asking it to frame rules to make declaration of assets and sources of income by electoral candidates. How ironic that the same Supreme Court refuses to ask judges to declare their assets.
Indian judiciary had led in formulation of and adoption by the United Nations Economic and Social Council of Principles of Judicial Conduct (The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct). I quote two statements: Value 3 (Integrity) “There are no degrees of integrity. Integrity is absolute. In the judiciary, integrity is more than a virtue, it is a necessity”; and Value 4 (Propriety) when in doubt, the judge must ask “How might this look in the eyes of the public”? One wonders if this was merely a rhetoric by the Indian judiciary.
A former Law Minister Late Mr. Shanti Bhushan, in a sworn affidavit (criminal contempt petition 10/2009) had alleged that 8 out of past 16 Chief Justices of Supreme Court were corrupt. As per the judgement of Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Veeraswamy case (1991), without CJI’s permission even an FIR cannot be filed on corruption, a cognizable offence, against justices of Supreme Court and High Courts. The judgement of the Constitution bench violated the Code of Criminal Procedure. One cannot but recall the words of the impeached US President Nixon “Well, when the President does it, that means that is not illegal” which seems to have been adopted as a guiding principle of integrity by the Indian judiciary.
In the absence of willingness of the judiciary to submit itself to the same ethics of financial integrity and transparency, the citizens would be correct in concluding a preponderance of probability that judiciary is corrupt and unaccountable. Indian judiciary’s ethics are non-existent and frighteningly voluntary, and track record abysmal.
On the second question. Self-appointed judges form a coalition of the corrupt. The Hindustan Times had done an expose on rampant nepotism in the Indian judiciary in 2014 and the Supreme Court itself had admitted the existence of “Uncle Judges”. Appointment of unqualified candidates has been alleged many a times. An egregious case is that of Senior Advocate, then the Chairman of Parliament Standing Committee on Law and Justice, receiving oral sex from a lady lawyer seeking favor of appointment to Delhi High Court. Within a few hours of the video going viral, the Supreme Court ordered its removal from social media. Was it a matter of private conduct of two consenting adults or was it a matter of seeking favor for appointment to higher judiciary? What was the Supreme Court trying to protect- an influential politician and a senior advocate or many others of its own? Blow-job appointed judges, if true, would be a big blow not only to the prestige of the judiciary but also to the institutions of democracy.
Justice Chandrachud. Since the conclusion of my research for this letter on 1st August 2024, I notice that the Supreme Court website has updated the information on assets of judges and indicated that all 28 judges have submitted the details of their assets to the Chief Justice of India[2]. Will it be correct to assume that you submitted your declaration of assets to yourself? A standard good governance practice is that organizations appoint an independent third party to receive and analyze the declarations, point out violations to the declarant and the organization, and provide an annual report to the public stakeholders. You can haul me up for contempt of the court, or more accurately the judiciary, or you can do the right thing and leave behind a transformative legacy by taking two actions: (a) make the public declaration of assets and liabilities by Indian judiciary mandatory and lead by example, or set up a system of independent and credible third-party repository, compliance review, and sharing publicly an annual analytical report, (b) to reduce perceptions of nepotism, include in the code of ethics the concept of PEPs[3] (proximity exposed persons) that includes “family” members of sitting judges if they practice in the same court. If you choose to haul me up for contempt of judiciary, I will spare one rupee since you have already set the standard of fine for contempt of court from the ruling cabal of judicial system. Alternatively, I will keep my toothbrush ready to go to jail.
I am circulating this letter to the Members of the Parliament.
Dear Members of Parliament. Indian citizens expect you to set aside your political differences to save our tottering democracy to enact a law to make it mandatory for judicial officers to declare their assets and liabilities. Restoring people’s trust in integrity of judiciary is critical to arrest the current rapid erosion of their confidence in this masthead of democracy.
Honorable Justice Chandrachud, I fervently pray that you will listen to your voice of conscience and leave behind a legacy larger than that of your father a former illustrious CJI who left a mark on the Indian society and democracy.
Sincerely
Mohinder Gulati
former Chief Operating Officer, United Nations Sustainable Energy for All
mgulatiwb@gmail.com www.mohindergulati.com X: @MohinderGulati
Only the writer, and no one forwarding or sharing this post, is responsible for the contents of this post.
[1] A bench led by Justice J Chelameswar also said that candidates must also disclose their or their families’ interest or stake in government contracts. Directing the concerned authority (the Election Commission) to make changes in the nomination form, the top court said non-disclosure of such information would amount to corrupt practice under the law, and ground for a lawmaker’s disqualification. Increase in the assets of legislators or their associates disproportionate to the known sources of their respective incomes is, by compelling inference, a constitutionally impermissible conduct and may eventually constitute an offence under the anti-corruption law, the court said. This should be a ground to disqualify the leaders, it observed.
[3] The concept of Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) is well defined. https://www.fatf-gafi.org/content/dam/fatf-gafi/guidance/Guidance-PEP-Rec12-22.pdf.coredownload.pdf. Using the same analogy, I am suggesting Proximity Exposed Persons to be adopted for declaration by the Judges and the Lawyers when appearing before a court.
Comments