In a landmark decision taken during a Full Court meeting on April 1, 2025, all 33 sitting judges of the Supreme Court (SC) consented to publicly disclose their assets on the official Website of the apex court. The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Sanjiv Khanna, introduced the proposal to the collegium which included himself, Justice BR Gavai, Surya Kant, A.S. Oka, and Vikram Nath. All the judges agreed to publicly disclose their assets and liabilities and it is expected to be published on the SC’s website.
What is a Full Court Meeting?
A Full court meeting refers to a session convened with the participation of all the judges of a particular court.
While there are no codified rules governing such meetings, they are convened by Chief Justice of India to deliberate on matters of significance concerning the judiciary such as administrative decisions, internal policies or for the ceremonial occasions.
According to a press release from the SC, 30 of the 33 judges, including the CJI, have already declared their assets. However, two newly-appointed judges—Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi—are yet to declare their assets and liabilities. The SC has a sanctioned a strength of 34 judges, with one position currently vacant.
CJI Sanjiv Khanna reportedly proposed the issue and addressed concerns raised by some judges. While an official notification of the decision is still pending, it is understood that the implementation details and timeline are being finalised. Judges may be required to submit a list of their assets after filing their income tax returns for the current financial year by July 31, 2025.
Background
The decision comes amid growing concerns about integrity following allegations that unaccounted cash was found at the official residence of High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, after a fire on March 14, 2025. An internal judicial inquiry is currently investigating the matter. Justice Varma, who has denied any connection to the cash reportedly found at his home, has been transferred to the Allahabad High Court.
A report from September 2024 revealed that out of 749 judges across 25 High Courts, only 98 judges—accounting for 13 per cent of the total—had publicly disclosed their assets. Data obtained through the Right to Information Act indicated that more than 80 per cent of these 98 judges were from just three High Courts: Kerala (37), Punjab and Haryana (31) and Delhi (11).
Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005
The RTI Act, 2005 is a transformative legislation enacted by the Parliament of India with the objective of fostering transparency, accountability, and good governance in public administration. The act empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities, thereby promoting informed citizenry and participatory democracy. It mandates a time bound process for furnishing such information, thus ensuring administrative efficiency.
Key Provisions include:
- Section 2(h) defines “public authority” to include bodies established by the constitution, law or government notification, which encompasses the judiciary
- Section 4(1)(b) mandates proactive disclosure of specific information by public authorities, promoting transparency
- Section 8 lists exemptions, such as matters relating to national security, personal privacy, and ongoing investigations, though public interest may override these exemptions
1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life
Previously, SC judges were required to declare their assets to the CJI under the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life. The SC created a framework through this code to ensure institutional accountability on various issues. This included the requirement for judges to declare their assets and investments to the CJI.
Adopting the ‘Restatement Values of Judicial Life’ laid the foundation for future efforts to ensure judicial accountability. This list consists of 16 points, which are not exhaustive, outlining the values judges should uphold and the pitfalls they should avoid.
Some of the key points state that judges
- must avoid actions that “erode” people’s faith in the higher judiciary, as “Justice must not merely be done but it must also be seen to be done”.
- must not contest elections/held office in clubs, societies, and associations.
- must avoid close association with “individual members of the bar”.
- must practice “a degree of aloofness consistent with the dignity of his office”.
- must not “speculate in shares, stocks or the like”.
- must be conscious that she is “under the public gaze “and avoid acts “unbecoming of the high office”.
One of the resolutions adopted by the SC stated, “Every judge should declare all assets in the form of real estate or investments (held by him/her own name or in the name of his/her spouse or any person dependent on him/her) within a reasonable time of assuming office; and in the case of sitting judge, within a reasonable time of adoption of this resolution. Thereafter, whenever any acquisition of substantial nature is made, it shall be disclosed within a reasonable time”.
The full court also created an in-house procedure to take action against judges who ‘do not follow the universally accepted values of judicial life’, including those outlined in the code. A five-member committee developed the procedure inn October 1997, and it was officially adopted in 1999.
Notably, they also decided that all judges must declare their assets, including real estate and investments, to the CJI ‘within a reasonable time of assuming office’. The resolution stated that these declarations ‘shall be confidential’. These asset declarations remained confidential till 2009, when they were made public for the first time.
Invocation of ‘Values of Judicial Life’
Since the in-house procedure and the ‘values’ resolution are closely connected, the most recent example of this resolution being invoked was when CJI Sanjiv Khanna initiated an in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma in March 2025. Together, the inquiry process and the ‘values’ resolution offer a way to hold judges accountable without resorting to impeachment, which has a much higher threshold.
As the SC stated in a 1995 case involving allegations of financial impropriety against the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, there is a ‘wide gap between proved misbehaviour and bad conduct inconsistent with the high office’. Actions falling under the category of ‘bad conduct’ are listed in the ‘values’ resolution.
The resolution was used again in 2014, when the SC revisited the in-house inquiry process after a woman Additional District and Sessions Judge from Madhya Pradesh filed a sexual harassment complaint against a sitting high court judge. The court clarified that the procedure is designed ‘to take suitable remedial action against judges who through their actions or failures, do not follow the accepted values of judicial life’, including the ideals set out in the resolution.
The 2009 Resolution
In August 2009, the full bench of the SC, led by the then CJI K.G. Balakrishnan, decided to post the assets and liabilities of judges on the SC’s website. This decision came after Justice Shylendra Kumar of the Karnataka High Court publicly disagreed with CJI Balakrishnan. Justice Shylendra Kumar opposed the idea that judges should not have to disclose their assets to the public.
Another full bench of the SC decided to publish assets of the judges on the court’s website, but ‘purely on a voluntary basis’. Justice Ravindra Bhat, a judge of the Delhi High Court at that time, ruled that the CJI’s office is a ‘public office’ under the RTI Act. He said the CJI’s office must disclose assets of the CJI and other judges. However, the SC in its administrative capacity disagreed with this ruling.
The 2019 Ruling
In November 2019, a five-judge bench of the SC, which included Justice Sanjiv Khanna, ruled that the office of the CJI is a public authority and must follow the RTI Act. Justice Sanjiv Khanna stated that judicial independence and transparency go hand in hand. Justice N.V. Ramana, who became CJI in 2021, agreed with Justice Khanna, emphasising the need to balance the right to information, transparency and judicial independence. Justice Khanna wrote the main judgment, stating that disclosing judges’ assets would not violate their privacy. In a separate opinion, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud stated that ‘judicial independence is not secured by the secrecy of cloistered halls’. These decisions were made in response to a case filed by RTI activist Subhash Agarwal, who had sought details of the assets declared by the SC judges under the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.
© Spectrum Books Pvt. Ltd.
