Why in News?

In a landmark move, all Supreme Court judges, including the Chief Justice of India, have decided to publicly declare their assets following a full court meeting held recently.

This decision follows the recent discovery of large sums of cash at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma. Unlike politicians and government officials, judges are not legally required to disclose their assets, making this a significant shift towards transparency.

The move reaffirms the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life—a judicial ethics code emphasizing integrity and accountability, which continues to guide the conduct of judges in their official capacity.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life
• Invocation of Judicial Values in Disciplinary Action

1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life

• The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997, aimed to create a framework for institutional accountability in the judiciary.
• It aimed to do so by requiring judges to declare their assets to the CJI and by initiating an “in-house procedure” to inquire into allegations of misconduct or ethical violations by judges.
• Key Features of the Code
  • It is a non-exhaustive list of 16 entries outlining values to uphold and pitfalls to avoid.
  • Notable directives include:
    • Maintaining Public Trust: Judges must avoid actions that erode public faith in the judiciary; justice must not only be done but seen to be done.
    • Political and Public Detachment: Judges must not contest elections or hold positions in clubs or associations.
    • Professional Boundaries: Avoid close ties with lawyers; family members in the legal profession must not appear before the judge or use their residence for work.
    • Impartial Conduct: Judges must maintain aloofness, avoid judging cases involving friends or relatives, and refrain from commenting on political issues.
    • Media and Public Exposure: Judges must avoid media interviews and let judgments speak for themselves.
    • Financial Integrity: No acceptance of gifts (except from close ones), no speculative investments, and no engagement in business or trade.
    • Transparency and Modesty: Judges must disclose any financial interests in companies involved in cases and avoid any act that may be seen as unbecoming of their office.
• In-House Procedure for Misconduct
• On the same day the values were adopted, the SC also resolved to establish an “in-house procedure” to act against judges accused of violating these ethical standards.
• A five-member committee developed the procedure, which was formally adopted in 1999.
• Asset Declaration Guidelines
  • All judges must declare assets and investments to the Chief Justice upon assuming office.
  • Initially, the information was to remain confidential.
  • In 2009, the Supreme Court decided that judges could declare assets publicly on a voluntary basis.
  • In 2018, a Constitution Bench ruled that judges’ asset declarations are not “personal information” under the RTI Act, opening the door for greater transparency.

Invocation of Judicial Values in Disciplinary Action

• The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life and the in-house inquiry procedure are closely linked and serve as tools for ensuring judicial accountability without resorting to the more stringent process of impeachment.
• Recent Invocation: Justice Yashwant Varma Case
  • CJI Sanjiv Khanna recently invoked the resolution while initiating an in-house inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma, demonstrating the continued relevance of these ethical guidelines.
• Bridging the Gap Between Misconduct and Impeachment
  • The Supreme Court acknowledged in a 1995 case that there exists a “yawning gap between proved misbehaviour and bad conduct inconsistent with the high office.”
  • The values resolution addresses this gap by enumerating forms of unacceptable conduct that, while not rising to the level of impeachable offenses, still warrant disciplinary action.
• Precedent: 2014 Sexual Harassment Complaint
  • In 2014, the resolution and in-house procedure were invoked when a woman judge accused a sitting High Court judge of sexual harassment.
  • The Supreme Court clarified that the procedure is meant to enable “suitable remedial action against judges” who violate the accepted values of judicial life, through acts of omission or commission.