Judicial transparency is no easy business. Take the declaration of judicial assets. Chief Justice Balakrishnan has no objection to Parliament passing such a law. But he points out that many judges were well-to-do lawyers before they joined the Bench. Scrutinising their assets slanders them without cause, making attracting fresh talent to the Bench difficult. Or take the demand for executive say in judicial appointments. The chief justice asks: which politician? After all, the role of a single party/leader is bound to be partisan. Equally, the way forward when a judge accuses a minister of interference requires sensitivity. But that doesn’t mean it must not be attempted. For in the mean time, names will be thrown around, entire institutions tainted, and faith in the system threatened. The details of who and how can come later, but

the bottom line is this — Justice Reghupathy’s allegations must be inquired into, and that inquiry must be transparent.