Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step toward judicial transparency and accountability with its 1st April, 2025 decision requiring all judges, including the Chief Justice of India, to publicly declare their assets. This decision reaffirms the principles established in the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, a code of ethics that continues to shape judicial conduct in India. The move comes in response to recent controversies, including the discovery of currency notes at the residence of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, and represents an important shift in judicial practice regarding transparency. 

What was the Historical Development of Judicial Ethics Framework? 

• The 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life emerged during a period of institutional introspection regarding judicial accountability.  
  • This code was developed as a self-regulatory measure by the judiciary to establish clear ethical guidelines for judges at all levels 
• The document was complemented by the creation of an in-house procedure in October 1997, formally adopted in 1999, which provided a mechanism for addressing allegations of judicial misconduct falling short of impeachable offenses. 
• The evolution of the asset declaration requirement reflects changing attitudes toward transparency.  
• Initially, the 1997 resolution specified that asset declarations would remain confidential, submitted only to the Chief Justice.  
• However, following a 2009 full court meeting, judges agreed to declare assets publicly on a voluntary basis.  
• This position was further solidified in 2018 when a Constitution Bench ruled that judges' assets and liabilities do not constitute "personal information" exempted from Right to Information (RTI) inquiries. 

What were the Principles Established in the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life? 

• Judges must maintain public faith in the judiciary, ensuring justice is not only done but seen to be done 
• Judges must refrain from contesting elections or holding office in clubs, societies, and associations 
• Judges should avoid close association with individual members of the Bar 
• Family members who are part of the Bar must not appear before the judge or be associated with their cases 
• Judges' residences must not be used for professional work by family members practicing law 
• Judges must maintain appropriate aloofness consistent with the dignity of their office 
• Judges must recuse themselves from cases involving family members or friends 
• Judges must not express public views on political matters that may require judicial determination 
• Judges should let their judgments speak for themselves and avoid media interviews 
• Judges must not accept gifts or hospitality except from family and friends 
• Judges must disclose shareholdings in companies involved in cases they hear 
• Judges must not speculate in shares, stocks, or similar investments 
• Judges must not engage in any trade or business directly or indirectly 
• Judges should not seek financial benefits connected to their office unless clearly available 
• Judges must remain conscious of public scrutiny and avoid unbecoming conduct 
• Judges must declare all assets in the form of real estate or investments 

How are Judges Held Accountable for Violating Ethical Rules? 

• The effectiveness of the Restatement of Values depends on the in-house procedure established to enforce these ethical standards.  
• This mechanism creates a middle ground between informal corrective measures and the constitutionally prescribed impeachment process, which has historically proven difficult to implement.  
• The in-house procedure allows the judiciary to address misconduct through internal disciplinary actions. 
• When complaints are filed against a judge alleging violations of these ethical standards, the Chief Justice may initiate an in-house inquiry, as seen in the recent case involving Justice Yashwant Varma.  
• This inquiry typically involves a committee of senior judges who investigate the allegations and submit recommendations. 
•  While the in-house procedure lacks statutory authority to impose sanctions, it can recommend measures ranging from advisories to suggesting voluntary resignation, with the implicit threat of potential impeachment proceedings for serious violations. 

How Have Judicial Ethics Been Applied in Real Cases? 

• The Restatement of Values and the in-house procedure have been invoked in several significant instances. In 1995, allegations of financial impropriety against the Bombay High Court Chief Justice prompted discussions about addressing "bad conduct inconsistent with high office" that may not rise to the level of "proved misbehavior" requiring impeachment. 
• In 2014, when a woman additional district and sessions judge from Madhya Pradesh filed a sexual harassment complaint against a sitting High Court judge, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of the in-house procedure.  
  • The Court emphasized that this mechanism exists to address actions that violate "accepted values of judicial life," even when they might not warrant impeachment. 
• The ongoing inquiry against Justice Yashwant Varma represents the most recent application of these ethical guidelines, demonstrating that the framework continues to serve as an important tool for maintaining judicial integrity. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court's decision to require public declaration of assets represents a significant evolution in judicial accountability in India. This moves builds upon the foundation laid by the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life and subsequent developments in the in-house inquiry procedure. By reinforcing transparency and ethical standards, the judiciary aims to enhance public trust and demonstrate its commitment to accountability without compromising judicial independence. This decision may mark a new chapter in judicial ethics that balances the need for transparency with the dignity and independence of the judicial office.