House panel wants judges to mandatorily declare assets
Declaration of assets by the judges of the higher judiciary will bring “more trust and credibility” into the system, the report said
A Parliamentary panel has recommended that the Centre bring in a law making it compulsory for judges of the Supreme Court and high courts to declare their assets on an annual basis.
In a report submitted in both houses of Parliament on Monday, a Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice chaired by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament Sushil Kumar Modi said, “The Supreme Court has gone to the extent of holding that the public has a right to know the assets of those standing for elections as MPs or MLAs. When so, it belies logic that Judges don't need to disclose their assets and liabilities.”
The recommendation of the Committee formed part of its 133rd report on the topic - Judicial Processes and their reform – which included other suggestions such as increasing retirement age, making judicial appointments inclusive of candidates from marginalised sections and women, shortening vacations, setting up regional Supreme Court benches and annual reports of Supreme Court and high courts to assess its performance.
A press release issued by the Rajya Sabha secretariat said, “As a general practice, all constitutional functionaries and government servants must file annual returns of their assets and liabilities....Anybody holding public office and drawing a salary from the exchequer should mandatorily furnish annual returns of their property.”
A full bench of the Supreme Court (comprising all judges) resolved on September 8, 2009 to declare their assets on a voluntary basis on the Supreme Court's website. Till date, it contains data with respect to 55 former Chief Justices of India and judges of the Supreme Court, the report said, adding that the data was last updated on March 31, 2018. As regards high courts, the Committee found only five high courts sharing data of assets on their website and that too by only a few judges.
Declaration of assets by the judges of the higher judiciary will bring “more trust and credibility” into the system, the report said. It recommended the Government to bring about an appropriate legislation to make it mandatory for judges of the Supreme Court and high courts to furnish their property returns on an annual basis to the appropriate authority.
The report has also recommended doing away with long Court vacations. The press release said, "A common man holds a perception that despite having such huge pendency of cases their judges go on long vacations. Further during the vacations, the litigants have to suffer a lot despite having a handful of vacation courts/benches.”
Although vacations by Courts are not the only factor for pendency, at the same time, the Committee felt that vacations in the judiciary are a 'colonial legacy' that causes inconvenience to litigants.
The Committee also stressed on social diversity among judges of the higher judiciary recommended an adequate number of women and candidates from the marginalized sections of the society including minorities to be considered for appointment to high courts and Supreme Court by the respective Collegiums in the high court and Supreme Court. “This provision should be clearly mentioned in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which is presently under finalization,” the release said.
Though there exists no reservation in matters of judicial appointments at the higher level, the Committee felt that adequate representation of various sections of society will strengthen the trust, credibility, and acceptability of the judiciary among citizens.
It also spoke of increasing retirement age of judges of high court (presently 62) and Supreme Court (presently 65) and suggested that the Constitution of India in this regard be amended. At the same time, while increasing the age of retirement for judges, the performance of judges may be reassessed based on their health conditions, quality of judgements, number of judgments delivered etc, the committee report said.
The Committee felt that by increasing retirement age, the practice of post-retirement assignments to judges of Supreme Court and high courts in bodies/institutions financed from public exchequer can be reassessed to ensure their impartiality.
