Transparency For All, Except Judges? The Flawed Logic Of Judicial Asset Disclosure

Ignited by the startling discovery of considerable undisclosed assets at Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence, the Supreme Court published asset declarations for 21 of its judges on May 5, 2025.

Yet, this action, while technically fulfilling an April 1, 2025 resolution, lays bare a deeper crisis of accountability within the judiciary. The fact that less than two-thirds of Supreme Court judges have complied, and a mere 12% of the vast body of High Court judges have followed suit, underscores the urgent need for systemic reform, raising fears that the judiciary is failing to adequately police itself.

Is Such Asset Declaration An Effective Yardstick To Assess The Finances Of The Judges?

Interestingly, on the same day (May 5, 2025), the Supreme Court also published the list of names approved by the Collegium for appointment as High Court judges.

For the sake of showing half-hearted transparency—that there is no nepotism involved in judicial appointments in the High Courts—data on relations to sitting judges was also provided. Out of 221 names, around 14 judges were related to one or more sitting judges. No such information is available in the public domain for Supreme Court judges.

The data raises concerns about the broad scope of "influential relations" impacting judicial appointments, extending beyond spouses and children to include siblings, parents, and in-laws. However, judges' asset disclosures often omit assets held by these relatives, typically covering only spouses and dependents, and even then, sparingly.

Additionally, there’s no mention of immediate or extended family members who are prominent legal figures, whose influence could significantly affect a judge’s financial standing indirectly.

Starting with the present CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s uncle was Supreme Court judge H. R. Khanna, known for his dissenting verdict during the Emergency. His father, D. R. Khanna, was also a Delhi High Court judge.

Moving ahead, former Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud’s father, Justice Y. V. Chandrachud, was the longest-serving Chief Justice of India. Chandrachud’s son, Abhinav Chandrachud, is a renowned lawyer who practises at the Bombay High Court.

Justice B. V. Nagarathna, who is expected to become the first woman Chief Justice of India in 2027, is the daughter of the late Chief Justice of India, Justice E. S. Venkataramiah. She did not declare her assets.

Judicial hegemonies are common in India. The Print's investigation found that at least 60% of sitting Supreme Court judges come from families with a legal background (either related to former judges or having parents/grandparents who were lawyers).

Justice Manoj Misra, who has not disclosed his assets either, has had a deep-rooted legacy of lawyers. His grandfather and father were prominent lawyers. His brother and two sons are also practicing advocates. His wife's aunt's son has been recommended for elevation to the Allahabad High Court, and his daughter-in-law is the daughter of a former Allahabad High Court judge.

Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, who has also not disclosed his assets, has his son as a practising advocate. Although very difficult to figure out at the surface level, judges normally have additional sources of income in the family, due to the ripple effect that their stature creates, making a hidden goldmine for their families. These streams of income can hardly be quantified by a hollow declaration of their properties and investments.

Historic Resistance to Asset Disclosures in Judiciary

This is one of the reasons why India's judiciary has been so hush-hush about the judges' wealth. Back in 1997, the Supreme Court, under Justice J.S. Verma, passed a resolution for judges to declare assets, but it was more of a secret handshake with the Chief Justice, not for the public eye.

Fast forward to 2007, an RTI activist poked the bear, asking if judges were even following their own rule. The Supreme Court's initial answer was a denial to disclose this information, categorizing it as "personal information".

This sparked a decade-long legal battle that finally ended in 2019, with the ruling of a 5-judge Bench, interestingly composed of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta, and Justice N.V. Ramana. The court grudgingly agreed to some transparency, but still kept the full picture under wraps. This is because it mandated disclosing whether assets are declared, but not their details, thereby shielding the judges from meaningful scrutiny.

In 2023, the Supreme Court again rejected the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s recommendation for mandatory annual public disclosures, citing the 2019 RTI ruling. This opacity stands in stark contrast to the rigorous disclosure standards imposed on other public officials, both in India and globally, highlighting a troubling double standard.

Full-Fledged and Regular Disclosure: A Necessity, Not an Option

MPs of the Rajya Sabha are mandated to disclose their interests under Rule 293 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Rajya Sabha. These interests include: remunerative directorship, remunerated activity, majority shareholding, paid consultancy, and professional engagement.

Moreover, the senators and public officials in the US and the UK, among others, are required to disclose their gifts and travel expenses as well. These parameters are relevant for the Indian judges, but are not taken into account.

Furthermore, there is a very high probability that the assets could be transferred in the name of the family members except the spouse and descendants. Hence, whether the disclosures published on the Supreme Court website are an accurate picture of the total assets owned by the judges is an unsolved riddle.

Furthermore, for asset disclosure of judges to serve a real purpose, judges should reveal their holdings before taking office and regularly thereafter. The templates regarding the documents prerequisite for the appointment procedure for Supreme Court judges, as publicly provided by the Supreme Court on May 5, 2025, do not include any income-related document.

A parallel could be drawn in this respect with the Members of Parliament, who have to navigate a dual disclosure mechanism - pre-election (Form 26 detailing their assets, liabilities, and those of their spouse and dependents during nomination) and post-election under Section 75A of Representation of People Act, 1951.

It ensures accountability from the elected MPs who are pivotal public figures in Indian democracy.

Disclosure by High Court and District Court Judges: Judiciary Untransparent

The Supreme Court Collegium is pin-drop silent upon the disclosure of assets by High Court judges, a lesson that should have been learnt after the recent cases like those of Justice Yashwant Verma, a Delhi High Court judge, and Justice Nirmal Yadav, a Chandigarh High Court judge.

Currently, High Court judges are around 769 in number, and the Supreme Court has direct control over them. Yet, only 95 out of 762 High Court judges (12.46%) have made such declarations.

Also, there is no whisper about mandating District Court judges to disclose their finances, which looks like a distant dream. Judiciary at all levels has to be transparent and free from alleged corruption and money laundering, and not just the apex court.

Time to Move Beyond Piecemeal Measures

The events surrounding the Justice Yashwant Varma case and the Supreme Court’s asset disclosures give a clear message: transparency in the Indian judiciary remains more symbolic than substantive.

Despite public declarations by 21 Supreme Court judges, the fact that one-third have not complied, and that most High Court and virtually all District Court judges remain outside any meaningful disclosure regime—underscores the inadequacy of current measures.

The selective and partial nature of these steps, coupled with the judiciary’s silence on influential family connections and the absence of robust scrutiny, leaves the door open to suspicion and opacity.

If India is to truly restore public trust and transparency in its justice system, it must move beyond half-hearted gestures.

Mandating regular, comprehensive asset disclosures for judges at all levels, supported by institutional oversight and catalyzed by technology, is not just desirable but essential.

It is high time that the judiciary’s fiercely guarded independence must now be matched by an equally fierce commitment to transparency and accountability.

Only then shall justice in India be seen to be served.