New Delhi, November 2
In a move that will enhance the image of the judiciary, 21 out of the 22 Supreme Court judges — including Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan — today declared their assets and of their wives by posting the details on the court’s website — supremecourtofindia.nic.in.

The only judge whose details of assets are not found on the portal is Justice HS Bedi. The assets’ details of Justice BN Agarwal, who retired on October 15, have been posted “on special request.”

The step is expected to end months of controversy over the apex court's refusal to place in public domain such details, maintaining that it was not bound to part with these under the Right to Information Act (RTI).

The details, provided under the heading “Assets of Judges,” however, did not have the total assets of each judge and his wife. Also, the value of a number of properties owned by them is not given.

According to the website, the CJI has no investment in shares or fixed deposit. He is in possession of 20 sovereigns of gold and a Santro car (2000 model). He has a house on a 15-cent land in Thrikkakara South Village in Kanayanur Taluk of Kerala. The value is not given. He also has two other properties in Kerala, one shown as his family's, with a total value of about Rs 10 lakh. Further he has a vacant residential plot, measuring 444.44 square yards and worth Rs 4.33 lakh, in Faridabad district. Further, his wife has a 2.68-acre land in Kerala.

The next senior most judge, Justice SH Kapadia, has invested about Rs 68 lakh in securities and other instruments. His wife has an investment of about Rs 31 lakh in similar savings instruments. He and his wife do not have a car.

Justice Tarun Chatterjee, third on the seniority list, has a two-page declaration which shows a building in Kolkata and very meagre savings of about Rs 1.6 lakh, besides two cars bought on loan.

The CJI has already made it clear that the judges would not respond to queries on the assets’ details such as increase or decrease over the years.

Most of the judges had provided such details to the CJI at the time of their elevation to the apex court, but these were not placed in public domain. In fact, the apex court had refused to provide the information to an applicant who had sought to know under the Right to Information Act whether the SC Judges were declaring their assets and liabilities to the CJI.

Subsequently, the apex court informed the RTI applicant that its judges had indeed submitted such details to the CJI. This was done at the instance of Delhi High Court, which had ruled that disclosure was the spirit of the RTI Act and that the office of the CJI was covered under the Act.

However, since the applicant had not sought the details of the assets these were not provided to him. Meanwhile, the SC has filed an appeal in the HC which has been referred to a three-judge Bench. The hearing on the appeal is slated for November 12.

Attorney General GE Vahanvati, arguing in the HC on October 7, said the September 2 verdict by Justice Ravindra Bhat had far reaching consequences and would be misused by unscrupulous elements to embarrass judges.

The SC move is expected to boost the credibility of the judiciary, particularly at a time when the nation’s focus is on the final outcome on the proposed elevation of Karnataka HC Chief Justice PD Dinakaran to the apex court.

The SC Collegium has asked the government to withhold his elevation, pending the report of a second round of fact finding on the allegations of corruption against the CJ. After a Collector of Tamil Nadu, where Justice Dinakaran was an HC judge earlier, confirmed reports of encroachment of land by the judge, the Collegium asked the government to delink his name from the list of four other CJs, including Justice TS Thakur of Punjab and Haryana HC, for the current round of elevation.

The final decision on Justice Dinakaran would be taken after receiving another report from the state government. The second report has been sought as Justice Dinakaran attributed motive to the Collector’s views.