Behind the angry chorus of the political establishment today —against judges’ assets not being made public — and the judiciary’s apparent reluctance is a telling reversal of roles.

For, six years ago, the government and the legislature were trying to restrict information about their assets and it was the Supreme Court that pushed for transparency and struck down that bid.

It was the legislature and the government’s view that it was necessary for people’s representatives, not before getting elected, but only after their election, to disclose information regarding assets, liabilities and criminal charges. The Court struck this restricting amendment as “illegal and null and void” and made a strong case for “public scrutiny” as the best means of getting the “cleanest” people elected.

That landmark judgment on March 13, 2003, laid the ground for the Election Commission to mandate that all those aspiring to be in public life — contesting elections — declare their assets and liabilities (apart from furnishing other information) in the public domain.

While now it’s the view of the Supreme Court that assets and liabilities of judges should be made available but to only the Chief Justice, then a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court stretched the fundamental right to freedom and expression (Article 19) to include the right of the common public to know more about those in public life.

All three judges — Justice M B Shah, Justice P V Reddi and Justice D M Dharmadhikari — wrote separate judgments in PUCL and another vs the Union of India but concurred that “the attempt of the Court should be to expand the reach and ambit of the fundamental rights by process of judicial interpretation and it has been done by this Court consistently.”

... contd.