法官披露的資產披露：有意義的改革的開始，還是僅僅是表面的划痕？

本文以高級擁護者和律師協會成員的不同觀點來研究資產披露是否標誌著有意義的改革的開始

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.

這篇文章由Anuja Sengupta和Rituparna Sengupta撰寫，始於最近發展的簡潔簡介：包括首席大法官在內的33位最高法院的現任法官決定披露其資產。

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.

為了提高透明度，採取了此舉，將重點放在了1997年重述司法生活價值觀中首次提出的承諾。

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?

在較高司法機構面對公眾審查的時候，尤其是在批量現金之後從大法官Yashwant Varma的住所中回收的，這一舉動引發了謹慎的樂觀。但這也提出了一個緊迫的問題：這是對結構改革的真正轉變，還是只是像徵性的行為來安撫日益增長的批評？

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

為了探討該決定的重要性，Lawbeat與法律兄弟會的成員進行了交談。

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.

最高法院的高級倡導者Swarupama Chaturvedi表示，該決定是朝著正確的方向邁出的一步，而Hon'ble法官給出了其他理由表明他們始終保持透明度和問責制。

“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.”

“該決定是加強公眾對司法交付系統的信任的眾多步驟之一，它為公共生活中的誠信留下了強大的信息。”

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.

但是，德里高等法院的高級倡導者薩辛·普里（Sacchin Puri）警告說，儘管在公共場所披露的資產是“朝著正確的方向邁出的一步”，但這本身並不足夠。

“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.

“自願是一個值得稱讚的一步。只要定期進行這項工作，它將達到目的，”德里高等法院的高級倡導者Pradeep Bakshi補充說。

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.”

但是，在任命法官時肯定應該進行更大的審查，同樣的審查也可能包括法官的直系親屬。在我看來，僅資產的披露是並且將是一個像徵性的手勢。 ”

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

阿拉哈巴德（Allahabad）的法律布里奇（Lawbridge）合作夥伴的坦米·薩德（Tanmay Sadh）提出，這是一種象徵性的姿態 - 比最近的爭議更重要的是，而不是系統性的改革。

“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.

“自1997年以來，法官對資產的公開披露一直是一個有爭議的問題，但直到迄今為止，法官尚無要求披露其資產的要求，即使今天，由於在所有自願披露其資產的決定之間達成共識，因此上述舉動是出於共識而產生的。除非有強制性的披露。

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

阿拉哈巴德（Allahabad）提供了更加細微的觀點，也是法律合作夥伴的倡導者德瓦·薩維拉（Devaang Savla），也是律師事務所合作夥伴的決定是更大的平衡行為的一部分。

“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.”

公開披露法官的資產需要達到目的；目前的領域可能是為了幫助司法責任，獨立性和公正的正義。如果不是一個像徵性的手勢，這可能會為未來的改革鋪平道路。最高法院法官的當前決定應更少被視為一項審查，而不是企圖進行獨立的collectum;

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.”

儘管如此，他還是謹慎。 “如果強制性披露，則可能會導致整個印度的司法官員不必要和無違法的審查，除非有效提出該程序。”

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

的確，儘管司法機構現在似乎更願意“打開書籍”，但更深入的不透明度仍然存在於關鍵職能（司法任命，案件分配等）圍繞著。

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 Sadh表示，雖然“任命，案件分配和回憶已經在公共領域中”，但薩德·薩德（Adv Sadh）表示：“應該以一種被考慮在同一個高級法院中升高到同一高級法院的練習倡導者的方式，與任命首席官方的任命相似。”

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

Adv Savla同意透明度必鬚髮展，但認為必須保護司法獨立性。

“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.”

“司法透明度不是有限的事情，公眾的看法起著非常關鍵的作用來證明其存在是合理的。任命原則上應該是司法機構的特權。現有製度本身可以發展朝著更大的透明度發展，這比外部干擾更合理。”

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

在案例分配和撤回的情況下，Adv Savla保持這些仍然是個性的獨立功能。

“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.”

“花名冊制度的主人和個人特權來判決特定案件；應留給個人的機智。但是，在明顯的情況下，現有的行政權力有足夠的能力來應對。”

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.

最高法院本身承認，當該機構在2015年罷免國家司法任命委員會時，需要對機構的問責制。將近十年後，法律界的許多人認為仍然缺乏有意義的改革。

Is judicial independence being used as a shield against scrutiny?

司法獨立性是否被用作防止審查的盾牌？

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 Pradeep Bakshi認為，一旦任命法官，他/她的評估應僅基於他/她的表現和判斷。他認為，如果有的話，法官應僅由他/她的同齡人評估。

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

Sr Adv Sacchin Puri說：“司法獨立性是憲法基本結構的一部分。不得損害司法機構的獨立性。但是，該原則旨在保護