Supreme Court Judges Including CJI Khanna To Publicly Declare Their Assets Amid Cash Row

In a landmark step toward judicial transparency, 30 sitting Supreme Court judges, including Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, have agreed to disclose their assets publicly on the court’s official website. The decision, finalized at a full court meeting on April 1, mandates asset declarations for all current and future judges, marking a shift from earlier voluntary practices amid growing calls for accountability following a cash-related controversy.

The Supreme Court’s resolution requires all judges to publish their asset details online, a move aimed at enhancing public trust in the judiciary. Previously, under a 1997 rule, judges submitted declarations to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), with public disclosure optional since a 2009 decision.

The move follows public scrutiny sparked by a fire incident at the residence of former Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, where burnt wads of cash were allegedly found. Varma was later transferred to the Allahabad High Court, though the Supreme Court clarified that the transfer was unrelated to the controversy.

ALSO READ | Centre Approves Justice Yashwant Varma’s Transfer to Allahabad HC Amid Cash Row

Among those already submitting declarations are CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice JK Maheshwari. The full list of 30 judges’ asset details will soon be accessible on the Supreme Court’s website, offering unprecedented visibility into their financial holdings. This includes properties, investments, and other assets, as per the court’s disclosure norms.

Historically, Supreme Court judges were not obligated to share asset details publicly. The 2009 resolution allowed voluntary disclosure, but uptake was inconsistent. The April 1 meeting changed this, reflecting a unified stance on accountability amid evolving public expectations.

The cash row involving Justice Varma had raised questions about judicial conduct, though no official link was established between the incident and his transfer. The Supreme Court’s clarification aimed to dispel speculation, but the episode underscored the need for greater openness. This resolution is seen as a proactive step to preempt similar controversies in the future.