India's Judicial Transparency

Written by: Jennifer Francis, 4th Year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Lovely Professional University

court.

One of the pillars of a democratic society is judicial transparency. As the defender of the Constitution and the defender of citizens' rights, the judiciary plays a crucial role in India. However, this institution's transparency, accountability, and accessibility are key factors that determine its legitimacy. The idea that judicial procedures, rulings, and operations ought to be accessible to the general public in order to guarantee justice, impartiality, and accountability is known as judicial transparency.

Although the judiciary in India has gained a great deal of respect, concerns about judicial secrecy, a lack of transparency, and decision-making opacity have frequently been brought up. The discussion of transparency covers a wide range of topics, including judge conduct, judgment disclosure, and judicial appointments and case distribution. This article discusses the concept of judicial transparency in the Indian context, its constitutional roots, legal frameworks, judicial declarations, obstacles, and the way forward.

Legal and Constitutional Foundations for Judicial Openness

1. The Constitution and the Preamble: The Indian Constitution's Preamble places a strong emphasis on equality, justice, and liberty. Only when judicial procedures are open and encourage public trust can these goals be achieved.

2. Freedom of Speech and Expression, Article 19(1)(a): The right to information is part of the freedom of speech and expression. This right is thus extended by judicial transparency, which makes it possible for the public to comprehend the administration of justice.

3. Article 21: Individual Liberty and the Right to Life: Life and liberty are directly impacted by judicial rulings. Therefore, maintaining Article 21 and guaranteeing due process and justice requires openness in judicial operations.

4. Article 14: Equality of RightsTransparency encourages equality before the law and guards against arbitrariness. The basic tenet of equal justice may be broken when court operations are unclear.

5. The 2005 Right to Information ActIn Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Union of India (2010), the Delhi High Court ruled that the Chief Justice of India's office is a "public authority" under the RTI Act, despite the judiciary's initial reluctance to be included in its purview. This was a major turning point in the advancement of transparency.

Aspects of India's Judicial Transparency

1. Public Hearings in Court: Indian courts often operate as open courts, meaning that the public and journalists can observe proceedings. The democratic ideal that "justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done" is upheld by this practice. There are, however, some exceptions, such as when it comes to children, sexual offences, or national security.

2. Judgement PublicationJudgements from the Supreme Court and High Courts are frequently posted on their official websites. Real-time data on cases that are pending or have been resolved is also available through the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). These actions improve accessibility and transparency.

3. Appointments in the JudiciaryWhen it comes to transparency, the judge appointment process has been one of the most contentious. Judges nominate judges under the "Collegium System," which has frequently been criticised for its secrecy. The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the 2015 case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, however the court also underlined the necessity of increased transparency in the collegium's operations. Collegium resolutions have recently been made available online, which is a step in the right direction towards transparency.

4. Roster System and Case AllocationAs the "master of the roster," the Chief Justice of India is the only person with the power to assign cases. Increased transparency has been demanded due to worries about arbitrary allocation. As a remedy, the publication of roster details has been implemented.

5. Judges' Asset DeclarationsSome judges started disclosing their holdings in response to the public's demand for accountability. Judges will disclose their holdings to the Chief Justice, but not necessarily to the public, according to a 2009 Supreme Court decision. Although there have been some partial disclosures, full transparency has not yet been achieved.

6. Court proceedings are streamed live.The Supreme Court of India permitted live streaming of hearings in matters of constitutional significance in the 2018 case of Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India. This decision to improve accountability and accessibility was regarded as historic. Several High Courts have also adopted live streaming, including those in Gujarat and Karnataka.

. Judicial Declarations Regarding Openness

India's judicial transparency has been shaped by some rulings:

In the 1975 case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to know.

Union of India v. S.P. Gupta (1981): The Court emphasised the value of an open government and transparency in judicial nominations in what is commonly referred to as the "Judges' Transfer Case."The 2004 case PUCL v. Union of India upheld the notion that democracy and free expression depend on the right to knowledge.

Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Central Public Information Officer (2019): Despite some limitations, the Supreme Court maintained that the Chief Justice of India's position is covered by RTI.

These decisions demonstrate the courts' growing acceptance of transparency as a requirement of the Constitution.

Obstacles to Judicial Openness

Achieving complete transparency is still difficult, even after a number of reforms and court rulings.

• Opaque Appointment Process: The collegium system is still criticised for lacking public accountability and impartial standards.

• RTI reluctance: Although the RTI Act legally permits disclosure, the judiciary frequently objects, arguing that judicial independence protects them.

• Inconsistent Asset Disclosure: The public's trust is undermined by judges' unwillingness to completely disclose their assets.

• Selective Live Streaming: Live streaming is still not widely used, although it is permitted in theory.

• Pendency and Delays: Overwhelming case backlogs and delays frequently eclipse transparency efforts, eroding public trust in the legal system.

• Absence of Internal Accountability: The public cannot easily understand procedures such as internal committees for judicial misconduct.

• The Value of Openness in the Judiciary

• Increasing Public Trust: Transparency gives people confidence that justice is fair and unbiased. Avoiding Corruption and Misconduct: Openness serves as a barrier against abuse of authority .Maintaining Accountability: Judges must continue to account to the public, just like all other public servants.

• Encouraging Legal Education and Awareness: Students, solicitors, and the general public can all gain a better understanding of the law by having access to court rulings and live hearings.

• Democratic Governance: By preventing the judiciary from operating as an unaccountable entity, transparency upholds the constitutional concept of the separation of powers.

• Codification of Collegium Guidelines: Creating precise, impartial standards for judge advancements and nominations.

• Complete RTI Implementation: Increased adherence to the RTI Act without compromising the independence of the judiciary.

• Universal Live Streaming: Providing live streaming for important trial court proceedings as well as all High Courts.

• Regular Asset Disclosure: To demonstrate accountability, judges ought to make their assets available to the public.

• Enhancing Internal Mechanisms: Open and honest disciplinary actions for wrongdoing by judges. Utilising technology to increase transparency and efficiency includes growing e-courts, using AI in case management, and digitising.

In Conclusion

In India, judicial transparency is both required by the constitution and essential to democracy. tremendous obstacles still exist even though there has been tremendous progress thanks to RTI, online publication of judgements, live streaming, and limited disclosures by the collegium. In order to ensure that transparency does not undermine impartiality but rather builds public trust, the court must strike a balance between independence and accountability.The rule of law is predicated on an open judiciary. Transparency guarantees not only justice but also confidence in justice in a multicultural and democratic nation such as India, where the judiciary serves as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional conflicts and citizens' rights. The way forward is to embrace reforms that strengthen the democratic spirit of the Indian Constitution by making the judiciary more accessible, accountable, and open.