Asset Disclosure by Judges: The Beginning of Meaningful Reform or Merely a Scratching of the Surface?

Featuring diverse perspectives from senior advocates and members of the Bar, this piece delves into whether asset disclosure marks the beginning of meaningful reform

This article, written by Anuja Sengupta and Rituparna Sengupta, begins with a concise synopsis of the recent development: 33 sitting judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, have decided to disclose their assets.

This move, done in an attempt to enhance transparency, brings back the focus on a commitment first laid out in 1997’s Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.

Coming at a time when the higher judiciary faces heightened public scrutiny—particularly after heaps of cash were recovered from Justice Yashwant Varma’s residence—the move has sparked cautious optimism. But it also raises a pressing question: is this a genuine shift toward structural reform, or just a symbolic act to placate growing criticism?

To explore the significance of the decision, Lawbeat spoke to members of the legal fraternity.

Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi of the Supreme Court says the decision is a step in the right direction and the Hon’ble judges have given additional reason to show that they are always upholding transparency and accountability.

“The decision is one amongst many steps to strengthen public trust in the justice delivery system, and it has set a powerful message showing integrity in public life.”

However, Senior Advocate Sacchin Puri of the Delhi High Court cautions that while asset disclosure in public is "a step in the right direction," it is not sufficient by itself.

“Voluntary is a commendable step. As long as this is undertaken periodically, it would serve the purpose,” adds Senior Advocate Pradeep Bakshi of the Delhi High Court.

But surely greater scrutiny should be carried out at the time of appointment of a judge and the same may also include the judge’s immediate family. Mere disclosure of assets, in my view, is and would be a token gesture.”

Advocate Tanmay Sadh of Lawbridge Partners, Allahabad, suggests that this is a symbolic gesture—driven more by recent controversies than systemic reform.

“Public disclosure of assets by judges has been a debatable issue since 1997 but till date there is no mandatory requirement for the judges to disclose their assets and even today the said moves comes as a result of consensus amongst all the SC judges who voluntarily took a decision to disclose their assets. Unless such disclosure is made mandatory there will not be any judicial transparency,” explains Sadh.

Offering a more nuanced perspective, Advocate Devaang Savla, also of Lawbridge Partners, Allahabad views the decision as part of a larger balancing act.

“The public disclosure of assets of a judge needs to serve a purpose; which in the present realm could be to aid judicial accountability, independence, and impartial justice. If not a token gesture, this could pave a pathway for future reform. The present decision of the Supreme Court judges should be seen less as a scrutiny and more of an attempt to restructure the independent collegium system; respecting its autonomy.”

Still, he offers a note of caution. “If the disclosure is made mandatory, the same could lead to unnecessary and uncalled scrutiny of judicial officers throughout India unless the procedure is validly introduced.”

Indeed, while the judiciary may now appear more willing to “open its books,” deeper opacity persists around key functions—judicial appointments, case allocation etc.

While Sr. Adv Puri asserts that "appointments, case allocation, and recusals are already in the public domain," Adv Sadh suggests, “The appointment of judges from the Bar should be made in such a manner that a practicing advocate who is being considered for elevation should not be elevated to the same high court in another capacity, similar to the appointment of the chief justices.”

Adv Savla agrees that transparency must evolve but believes judicial independence must be protected.

“Judicial transparency is not a bounded affair and public perception plays a very pivotal role to justify its being. Appointments, in principle, should remain the prerogative of the judiciary. The existing system itself can evolve toward greater transparency—it’s a more reasonable approach than external interference.”

On case allocations and recusals, Adv Savla maintains these remain individual, independent functions.

“The master of roster system and personal prerogative to adjudge a particular case; should be left to the wit of the individual. However, in evident circumstances the existing administrative powers are well equipped to counter the same.”

The Supreme Court had itself acknowledged the need for institutional accountability when it struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission in 2015. Nearly a decade later, many in the legal community argue that meaningful reform is still lacking.

Is judicial independence being used as a shield against scrutiny?

Sr Adv Pradeep Bakshi feels that once a judge is appointed, his/her evaluation should be based solely on his/her performance and judgments. He believes that a judge should only be assessed by his/her peers, if at all.

Sr Adv Sacchin Puri says that "judicial independence is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The independence of the judiciary must not be compromised. However, the principle is meant to protect