A recent report on the state of India's judicial system has raised several troubling questions about its transparency. The Judicial Transparency Index (JTI) report, prepared by the Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) initiative of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, has found that court proceedings, judicial appointments and other institutional processes in the country's judiciary are not sufficiently transparent. The JALDI initiative arrived at this conclusion after analysing information disclosed by the Supreme Court and various High Courts on their official websites. The report was based on factors such as information available in the public domain relating to court proceedings, institutional administration and governance, and publicly available details about the judicial community, including judges, lawyers and court administrators. Based on data collected over a three-month period, the report concluded that most courts do not go beyond the generic when it comes to disclosing court proceedings. Only 13 High Courts currently provide limited live streaming of court proceedings through their official websites, and among them, four broadcast nearly three-fourths of their proceedings live. While 25 High Courts publish their daily case lists, only eight make them available 24 hours in advance. Merely eight High Courts have formulated a policy governing the dissemination of information to the media. Only 11 High Courts have published complete details of their Internal Complaints Committees. Of the 25 High Courts that have disclosed information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 15 have explicitly stated that such disclosures should not extend beyond the scope of the RTI law. The report also noted that eight High Courts have yet to prepare an annual budget. Of the 813 High Court judges across the country, only 87 have publicly disclosed their assets. Furthermore, only two High Courts publish details of disciplinary action taken against district judicial officers.
In a democratic system, the judiciary serves as the people's last safeguard. Justice and fairness form its foundation, while transparency is its defining principle. When governments seek to conceal facts and individuals behind a fascist iron curtain, it is the responsibility of the courts to lift that cover and protect citizens' rights. Whenever the judiciary rises to that responsibility, the relief that the public gets is not small. At the same time, even minor lapses within the judicial system can erode trust and leave people disappointed and frustrated, as recent developments in India have shown. Speaking at the release of the JALDI report, Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stressed the need for greater transparency in the judiciary. He observed that transparency is closely linked to the fairness and credibility of judicial decisions, arguing that citizens have a right to know what transpires in courts and who the judges are that decide their cases. Justice Bhuyan also pointed out that the observations and assessments made by the Supreme Court Collegium regarding the appointment, promotion and transfer of judges continue to remain confidential. He noted that the reasons for rejecting or deferring recommendations placed before the Collegium are often not disclosed. The Supreme Court judge further criticised the continued practice of the government submitting sealed-cover documents to courts in the name of national security. Even while a Supreme Court directive mandating that the appointment of government counsel and other officials to courts be based on merit and transparency remains in force, the Andhra Pradesh and Allahabad High Courts recently issued notices to their respective state governments, seeking clarification on the criteria for such appointments. A public interest litigation was also filed before the Delhi High Court, alleging unfair allocation of court chambers to relatives of practising lawyers. Two years ago, Rajasthan's Additional Advocate General resigned after allegations of nepotism in appointments.
The Supreme Court has also raised objections to the empanelment of 650 lawyers as Central government counsel. This year, the Delhi High Court was further approached with a complaint alleging that children of sitting judges had been appointed as government counsel. The JALDI report and the observations made by the Supreme Court judge raise a fundamental question: Is it enough for justice to be evident only to the courts that oversee that system? The judicial system must uphold its dignity and prestige by establishing a framework characterised by transparency based on precise criteria, declaring standards for judicial appointments, reasonable decisions to safeguard confidentiality where necessary, and the disclosure of information where public interest demands it. Official institutions themselves must take the initiative to set an example of moral integrity. Democracy should be strengthened by holding up justice in the open, not in hiding.