Is disclosure of judges' wealth mandatory?

Point your mobile to: http://m.ibnlive.com

The judiciary is split wide open on the issue of whether or not judges should declare their assets in public. Two judges of the High Court – Justice VD Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka HC and Justice K Kannan of the Punjab and Haryana HC – openly disagreed with the Chief Justice of India, K G Balakrishnan.

However, Balakrishnan has told CNN-IBN that the judiciary is not embarrassed by the open disagreement shown towards him by Justice Shylendra Kumar, calling him a “publicity seeker”.

And that brings us to the question that was being asked on CNN-IBN's Face The Nation - judiciary split on judges' assets: should judges declare their assets?

On the panel of experts to try and answer the question were former chief justice of India, J S Verma; MP and Congress Spokesperson, Abhishek Manu Singhvi; Senior Advocate Harish Salve; and Senior Advocate and Convenor of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform, Prashant Bushan.

At the beginning of the show 95 per cent of those who voted in said yes, judges should declare their assets, while a minority 5 per cent disagreed.

Assets row

Justice (retd) J S Verma was the chief justice of India in 1997 when 22 judges of the Supreme Court passed a resolution saying that assets should be declared. He began the debate by saying that they had decided not to keep their asset declaration confidential.

He said he would not clear any appointments unless the concerned judge made a declaration and also committed to abiding by such resolutions.

"That's what I enforced during my tenure. On December 1, 1997 I sent all these resolutions to the prime minister and suggested to him that the framework for the kind of legislation needed to get legal sanction which has already been provided by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, along with the institutional consent of the Supreme Court and the only thing needed to be done was to convert the social sanction to legal sanction. I retired in January and further action was left to be taken by my successors. I can't speak for them. One thing is clear we never decided to keep it confidential. The state of publishing it did not reach because it was a step-by-step action to be taken," he said.

When the UPA Government introduced the Judges' Declaration of Liabilities and Assets Bill in the previous Rajya Sabha session, that Bill was being seen as meeting the objections of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan. The question is why did the UPA introduce a Bill, which is setting the clock backwards on declaration of assets?

To this Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, "That Bill is a closed chapter because it was withdrawn before introduction in deference to the sentiments of the House. We have to look towards a constructive solution now. Why flog a dead horse? It is not a question of a political party like Congress taking a stand on an issue of the judiciary. What I have is a personal opinion here because the party is not obliged to make a stand on this. My personal opinion is quite clear – we need to have disclosure. Also, there cannot be denial of access to that disclosure on the other hand."

However, Singhvi handed a caveat saying, "Judicial independence is a virtue which must not in the least be diluted or compromised. So if there is the slightest threat to judicial independence - which is possible by frivolous litigants or people who are and trigger happy and want to take a potshot - we must form a small, eminent committee to weed out frivolous applicants."

The panelists said that the judges are eminent members of the country, they cannot speak to the press for they are limited by court orders so they cannot be treated at the same level as the executive and the legislature. Their independence has to be safeguarded more.

Prashant Bhushan interrupted here saying, "Judges today exercise more power than any other organ of the state and therefore they need to be accountable. It is the same logic with which the Supreme Court ordered election candidates to declare their assets. It is a democracy and people have the right to know whether assets have been acquired by legal or illegal means."

He rubbished Singhvi's argument that disgruntled litigants will make vexatious allegations referring to judges' assets as a bogus argument.

"Judges not only have the protection from civil and criminal defamation, they also have the protection of the Contempt of Court Act. And any allegation will never ruin the reputation of any honest judge," he stated.

Moral standing of judiciary in jeopardy?

Harish Salve said that he would like to come to the rescue of Singhvi here. "The Government did what it was supposed to do when it came out with the Bill. Parliament then did what it had to do – took strong exception to the Bill and sent it packing home. The judiciary should now take the high moral ground and say if there is such a huge controversy, then we should declare our assets."

The Chief Justice says at the moment there is no consensus among judges on declaration of assets, but Justice Verma said that he didn't think there could be two opinions.

"With the Supreme Court's composition changing, the institutional decisions do not get diluted, though they may be modified. All 22 judges were party to the institutional decision of the May 7, 1997 resolution – which I conveyed as the chief justice to the prime minister. Six of these 22 judges became chief justices thereafter. I am not able to appreciate or understand what more consent is needed of the Supreme Court thereafter," he said.

"I demitted that office 11 years ago but I feel upset and pained to hear this debate in Parliament. I am constantly upset by the remarks being made because I am sure that most of the judges – there may be a rare exception – have no hesitation in declaring their assets in public. A wrong impression is gaining around as if we judges do not want to do it. Many judges have talked to me personally, both of Supreme Court and High Court. They have all said that they want to do it. The Chief Justice of India as the head of the judicial family leads by example and that really is the real moral authority. I only wish that the present Chief Justice cuts short this unsavoury debate and makes a declaration himself. I am sure the judges who want to do it, will follow soon. All this unhealthy talk going against the judiciary which is not correct will stop," he added.

On one hand, what Justice Verma said seemed like an indictment of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, but on the other hand, it seemed as if Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan was being unfairly blamed because he had already said that those judges who wanted to declare their assets could go ahead and do the same.

Prashant Bhushan interrupted here saying that it must also be remembered that Chief Justice Balakrishnan had been very upset when Karnataka High Court judge Justice Shylendra Kumar had come out in the open saying he wanted to declare his assets.

"Though, for the record he is saying that he has no problem if judges declare their assets, it may be noted that he is trying to prevent enforcement of an order of the Central Information Commission seeking information about whether judges were declaring their assets. At the same time he is going to a number of media platforms to make his opinion on why judges should not declare their assets. Clearly he is sending a signal that he is not in favour of judges declaring their assets," said Bhushan.

Harish Salve jumped to Chief Justice Balakrishnan's defence saying that he did not agree at all with the manner in which Karnataka High Court judge Justice Shylendra Kumar had conducted himself.

"Karnataka High Court judge Justice Shylendra Kumar is wrong when he says the Chief Justice of India is nobody to speak for the judges. As Justice Verma rightly said, the Chief Justice of India is the head of the judicial family. He represents an institution and he is entitled to speak for the judges. He says he is trying to evolve a consensus and we should believe what he says. The fact that he has criticised the Karnataka High Court judge doesn't send any wrong message."

Salve added that it was now time to cut the debate short because it had taken an unsavoury turn.

Assets and judicial reforms

The point that many people wanted to clear was whether declaration of assets was the only way to bring about judicial reforms in India.

Singhvi said that he did not agree it was the only or the major way to bring about judicial reforms.

"It is just one part and a small part – a part which has less concrete or practical significance but one with a symbolic significance. I think the important thing is if you squeeze the system too much and keep it too tightly constricted, then it will start splitting at the edges. There will be more judges starting to join the chorus of wanting to declare assets. So I think disclosure must start," he concluded the debate by saying.

Final results of the SMS/Web poll: Judiciary split on judges' assets: should judges declare their assets?

Yes: 96 per cent

No: 4 per cent

Click to play video