Published on: 19th June, 2025 21:42 IST
In a notable move towards greater transparency, the Supreme Court of India, under the leadership of outgoing Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, published three important sets of documents on 5 May. These releases are aimed at restoring public trust in the court’s internal functioning.
The disclosures include:
- Detailed procedural documents focusing how judges are appointed to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- A comprehensive table listing Collegium-approved High Court judge appointments made between 9 November 2022 and 5 May 2025.
- Asset declarations filed by 21 of the 33 sitting Supreme Court judges.
This follows the Full Court’s decision on 1 April to make judges’ asset declarations public. The Supreme Court assured that remaining asset statements would be uploaded once received.
Shedding Light on Appointments: What’s New?
While some information was already public through the Memoranda of Procedure (MoPs) that have existed since the late 1990s, efforts to revise and modernize these MoPs had stalled following the 2015 Supreme Court verdict that struck down the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act. The court had then called for the MoPs to be updated to improve transparency, define clear eligibility criteria, and consider setting up a dedicated Secretariat for handling complaints and communication with potential appointees.
However, disagreements between the judiciary and the government—particularly over who should draft the revised MoPs—have prevented progress. This stalemate has continued amid public criticism. For instance, former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had raised concerns in Parliament over the Collegium’s opaque functioning, while judges have pushed back against delays in government notifications on appointments.
The Performance Appraisal Template: A First Look
Among the newly released materials, the Performance Appraisal Template (PAT) stands out. This tool provides a structured overview of a High Court judge’s work—listing judgments by year, subject matter, and the nature of decisions (like remands or rulings in favor of the State). It even notes how often judges have ruled in favor of either the Income Tax Department or taxpayers—offering a rare glimpse into judicial trends.
Confidentiality: A Misplaced Label?
Not everything in the new batch of documents is groundbreaking. Several of the letters—such as those sent by the Chief Justice to the Law Minister recommending appointments—are labeled “confidential,” despite containing only basic information that’s already been public in Collegium resolutions since 2017. Similarly, opinion letters from consultee judges are also marked confidential, though they are generic in nature. The Court adds a disclaimer that these are specimen documents and contents may differ by case, suggesting the actual decision-making remains shielded from public scrutiny.
The Issue of Reiterated Recommendations
One long-debated issue in judicial appointments is whether the government must accept a judge’s recommendation once it has been reiterated by the Collegium. While the 1993 Second Judges Case clarified that reiterated suggestions are binding on the executive, this principle is not formally reflected in the MoPs.
Interestingly, the new High Court appointment document clearly states that reiterated recommendations are binding on the government—but this clarity is missing from the equivalent document for Supreme Court appointments. It’s unclear whether this was an oversight or deliberate, but it raises concerns given past instances of the government delaying or refusing appointments without formal rejection.
Examples include Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium, who withdrew his candidacy for the Supreme Court in 2014 after political pushback, and Justice S. Muralidhar, whose proposed transfer in 2023 was quietly dropped after prolonged government inaction.
Diversity and Nepotism: Some Data, Some Gaps
The newly released list of High Court judge recommendations from the terms of CJIs D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna also includes community background and familial ties—an apparent effort to confront criticisms about lack of diversity and the “Uncle Judges” phenomenon.
This is the first time such diversity information has been made available in a consolidated format. An independent analysis of the data found that only 3.6% of High Court appointees were from Scheduled Castes. Also included is information on whether appointees are related to serving or retired judges—an issue that has long drawn scrutiny over favoritism in judicial selection.
Oddly, similar information wasn’t disclosed for Supreme Court judges. While caste affiliation of some SC judges is publicly known, data on judges from Other Backward Classes remains unavailable, making this transparency exercise appear somewhat incomplete.
Asset Declarations: Symbolic or Substantive?
The idea of judges publicly declaring their assets dates back to 1999, although actual disclosures only began in 2009. Importantly, such declarations have never been legally required—they’ve always been voluntary. The latest push for disclosure came after a controversy involving large sums of cash found at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, previously of the Delhi High Court.
While CJI Khanna deserves credit for leading this initiative and encouraging his fellow judges to follow suit, many observers argue that simply disclosing assets does little to address systemic corruption. Scholar Shubhankar Dam, in a 2022 research paper, argued that judicial corruption in India tends to remain hidden regardless of asset declarations.