Supreme Court judges are set to publicly disclose their assets, harking back to the ethics code established in 1997 that introduced this concept

In a pivotal decision made during a full court meeting on April 1, all Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice of India, will publicly disclose their assets. This decision follows the recent revelation of large sums of cash found at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma last month.

Judges, unlike government officials and politicians, are not required to publicly share this information, and many have chosen not to do so. This recent move could signify a significant change and serves as a reaffirmation of the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, a code of ethics established during a previous full court meeting.

This document continues to shape discussions regarding the conduct expected of judges while fulfilling their official responsibilities.

The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life aimed to establish a framework for institutional accountability on various matters. It included requirements for judges to declare their assets and investments to the Chief Justice of India and laid the foundation for an "in-house procedure" to investigate judges accused of violating these "values" or facing allegations of misconduct or corruption.

The adoption of the "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" set the stage for all future initiatives aimed at ensuring judicial accountability. It comprises a numbered, non-exhaustive list of 16 principles that judges are expected to uphold and pitfalls they should avoid.

On the same day, the full court also decided to create an in-house procedure to address actions against judges who fail to adhere to the universally accepted values of judicial life, including those outlined in the code. A five-member committee developed this procedure in October of that year, which was officially adopted in 1999.

It is important to note that the judges have mandated that all judges must disclose their assets, including real estate and investments, to the Chief Justice of the court "within a reasonable time of assuming office." Although the resolution specifies that this declaration "shall be confidential," this position has evolved over the years.

After a comprehensive court meeting in 2009, the judges opted to publicly declare their assets "on a purely voluntary basis." Subsequently, in 2018, a Constitution Bench determined that judges' assets and liabilities do not qualify as "personal information" under RTI inquiries.

The invocation of the 'values of judicial life' is significant in this context. The in-house procedure and the 'values' resolution are closely interconnected, as demonstrated by the recent instance where Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma last month. This inquiry process, along with the 'values' resolution, offers a framework for holding judges accountable without resorting to impeachment, which requires a much higher threshold.

As articulated by the Supreme Court in a 1995 case involving allegations of financial misconduct against the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, there exists "a yawning gap between proved misbehaviour and bad conduct inconsistent with the high office." Actions that fall under the latter category of 'bad conduct' are detailed in the 'values' resolution.

The resolution was referenced again in 2014 when the Supreme Court reviewed the in-house inquiry process following a complaint of sexual harassment filed by a woman additional district and sessions judge from Madhya Pradesh against a sitting High Court judge. The court emphasized that the procedure is designed "to take suitable remedial action against judges who, through their actions or inactions, fail to adhere to the accepted values of judicial life," which include the principles articulated by the Supreme Court in the resolution.