​The Centre is working on a proposal to make it mandatory for all judges of the Supreme Court and high courts to declare their assets annually and has sought social status data of all serving judges pertaining to their class/category to assess social diversity in the judiciary.

This information was revealed in an action-taken report submitted to the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday by a Parliament standing committee that was considering implementation of its 133rd report on the subject, “Judicial processes and their reforms”.

The committee chaired by BJP MP Sushil Kumar Modi had sought the response of the Department of Justice on an array of issues concerning the judiciary, of which one related to mandatory disclosure of assets. Dealing with the same, the department in its response told the committee that the government has proposed framing rules to make declaration of assets by judges mandatory. The 30-member parliamentary committee also included Mahesh Jethmalani (BJP), Vivek Tankha (Congress), P Wilson (DMK) and Kalyan Banerjee (Trinamool Congress).

Also read: Lok Sabha okays bill to check malpractices in public exams

The report reproduced the Centre’s response that said, “Based on the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee, this Department is proposing to frame Rules under the High Court Judges Act, 1954 and Supreme Court Judges Act, 1958 to lay down a procedure for making statutory provisions in the Rules for Declaration of Assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court Judges on their initial appointment and thereafter every year by the due date.”

This is not final yet as the government has initiated consultations with the registry of the Supreme Court to know its views on the matter. The response is awaited.

The committee 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.”

Further, the committee was of the view, “Anybody holding public office and drawing a salary from the exchequer should mandatorily furnish annual returns of their property. Declaration of assets by the judges of the higher judiciary will only bring more trust and credibility into the system.”

At present, judges are not bound to declare their assets. The Supreme Court in a full court meeting held on May 7, 1997 adopted a resolution known as “The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life” that laid down certain standards to be observed by judges of superior courts. This document made it mandatory for every judge of the Supreme Court and high court, including chief justices, to declare their assets/liabilities at the time of appointment and revise these at the beginning of each year.

More than a decade later, the full bench of the Supreme Court (comprising all judges) resolved on August 26, 2009 to disclose assets on the court website. Days later, on September 8, 2009, the full bench decided that the declaration will be voluntary and resolved to put out the details by October 31, 2009.

The top court website contains information on assets of 55 judges, who have retired. Not a single sitting judge, including Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, finds mention in the list. The last entry is by former CJI NV Ramana who revised the details on March 31, 2018. Though some high courts also passed similar resolutions, it is not known how many have declared these as only five have put it on their website.

The panel has asked the department of justice to “fast-track the consultation process” with the Supreme Court registry.

This is not the only issue where the judiciary’s response is awaited. The Centre has sought “class/category wise data of serving judges in the Supreme Court and high courts” following the committee’s earlier recommendation to have social diversity and greater representation of marginalised groups, women and minorities.

Providing figures from October 31, 2022 to November 8, 2023, the department told the committee that among the 141 judges appointed, there were 5 from scheduled castes, 5 from scheduled tribes, 20 from other backward classes (OBC), 8 from the minority section, and 22 women. The remaining 81 belonged to the unreserved category. Among the minorities, four belonged to Jains, Christians (2), Muslim (1) and Zoroastrian (1).

Also read: Modi to embark on tour across states before Lok Sabha polls

The committee noted that the class/category-wise data in respect of judges is available from the year 2017. “For the remaining judges presently serving in the Supreme Court and high courts, data has been sought from the judiciary by the ministry. This process may be expedited with the judiciary and it may be forwarded to the committee for examination as and when such an exercise is completed.”

Commenting on the data provided for the last one year, the committee said, “It can be seen that our higher judiciary suffers from a ‘diversity deficit’. The representation of SCs, STs, OBCs, women, and minorities in the higher judiciary is far below the desired levels and does not reflect the social diversity of the country.”