Justice Dinakaran and the judges' assets issue

On the second of September this year, a single judge bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) was a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) act, quashing an appeal by the Supreme Court against a Central Information Common Order. The Order merely questioned if judges declared their assets to the Chief Justice and if so, to what extent. While many jurists welcomed this decision, the consternation it caused the higher judiciary was amusing to behold. That someone had the temerity to ask them to establish their integrity, in the wake of numerous corruption charges, was unacceptable to them.


Is the judiciary’s aversion to transparency borne out of a sense of undeniable probity? Nothing could be further from the truth. The judiciary is as susceptible to corruption as any other organ of the state. This declaration of assets is important because there is no other means to fight judicial corruption. An FIR, on charges of corruption, cannot be filed against a judge without the approval of the Chief Justice of India. Attempts by private agencies to uncover corruption, in the past, have caused them much misery, like in the Y.K.Sabharwal case.


The Justice Dinakaran controversy has put the assets declaration issue in the spotlight. The Forum for Judicial Accountability submitted a memorandum to the Supreme Court Collegium that recommended Justice Dinakaran’s name, detailing the charges of land-grabbing, corruption, and abuse of office against him. Alarmed at the lack of action on the part of the Supreme Court, a few senior lawyers – Prashant Bhushan and Fali Nariman among them - visited the CJI, Justice KG Balakrishnan in person to bring it to his attention. The CJI then summoned Justice Dinakaran for a discussion on this issue. After Justice Dinakaran denied all allegations, the CJI ordered a discreet probe into the matter while a representation was made to the Prime Minister. The file is now pending with the Law Ministry. On October 5, Justice Dinakaran resumed his duties as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. This raises another question: If the allegations against him were serious enough for his elevation to the Supreme Court to be stayed pending an inquiry, how was he allowed to continue as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court? To add to all this, there have been ludicrous allegations of caste bias from certain quarters.

All along, there have been protests against Justice Dinakaran by advocates in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

This situation could have been avoided had a framework for the declaration of judges’ assets been put in place. If declaration of assets is not made mandatory, it will only result in more such irregularities. The judiciary can no longer consider itself sanctimonious and beyond reproach. Although it is true that the judiciary must be free of all the mud-slinging and petty jealousies that have become commonplace in politics, wishing corruption away will not help. Since the judiciary has spectacularly failed to regulate itself effectively, asking for it to be kept beyond the reach of anyone’s criticism amounts to asking for permission to keep it unaccountable. The Justice Dinakaran issue shows exactly what lack of transparency can lead to.







View Larger Map