It is not the law minister alone who was rebuffed in the Rajya Sabha on August 3, when the House would not grant him leave to introduce the Judges (Declaration of Assets and Liabilities) Bill 2009. It was a rebuke also to the judges of the higher judiciary; they were pulled down a peg or two for having expressed their readiness to disclose their assets if there was a law to that effect enacted by Parliament, but only if that law ensured the confidentiality of such declaration. Members of Parliament reacted unfavourably — one of the national newspapers, in an editorial, told us why: “the judiciary had ruled some years ago that a person must officially declare his (or her) assets and liabilities before becoming an election candidate, and MPs of all parties, ruling Congress included, were only returning the compliment!”

What is of concern to me is not the exchange of compliments. What is of concern is that the prestige of our higher judiciary has been adversely affected. This has never happened before; whenever in the past the law minister, in consultation with the CJI, introduced measures for increasing salaries, pensions and perquisites for judges of the higher judiciary, the measure was not only permitted to be introduced in one or other House, but it got passed smoothly in both Houses. Then why this snub? Let me explain.

Sometime ago one Subhash Aggarwal sought information (seemingly innocuous) from the office of the Supreme Court as to “whether any judges of the Supreme Court and High Court have been declaring their assets under the code of conduct adopted by the chief justices”. The office of the Supreme Court said that this information did not exist in the Registry, and information was therefore declined. In an appeal filed by Aggarwal before the Chief Information Commission (under the Right to Information Act, 2005) the office of the Supreme Court took the stand that though this information was in the chief justice’s office, that office was not part of the Supreme Court Registry. The CIC rejected this plea and ordered the office of the Supreme Court to get the information (as to whether any judges were disclosing their assets) from the chief justice’s office, and to disclose it.

... contd.