Judicial Transparency Index Reveals Shocking Gaps
The Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and JALDI’s Judicial Transparency Index Report, released on August 1, 2026, uncovers concerning deficiencies in the disciplinary accountability of judges across India’s High Courts. Strikingly, none of the 25 High Courts publish a code of conduct for judges, leaving the public in the dark about the behaviors that can be formally challenged.
Disciplinary Accountability Indicators
The report evaluates High Courts against seven indicators of disciplinary accountability, organized into four key areas: publication of a judge’s code of conduct, specification of complaint-worthy conduct, disclosure of complaint filing procedures, and transparency in the investigation timeline and outcomes. Unfortunately, the findings were grim, with most High Courts offering no information on these critical fronts.
High Courts’ Performance: A Blank Slate
Only the Madras High Court provided any insight into complaint-worthy conduct through a general notice about bribery. Other courts, like Punjab and Haryana’s “Citizen Corner” and Sikkim’s grievance page, offer limited avenues not specific to judicial complaints. Conversely, courts such as Allahabad, Himachal Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh explicitly exclude judges from their grievance mechanisms.
On the crucial aspect of publishing sanction decisions, only the High Courts of Tripura and Jammu & Kashmir provided any records, with the former detailing the misconduct and penalties, unlike the latter’s sparse disclosures. The rest of the High Courts offered no records at all.
Supreme Court’s Paper Trail and Transparency Challenges
The Supreme Court’s approach to disciplinary transparency is only marginally better. While it has a document titled “Restatement of the Values of Judicial Life,” the specific conduct against which complaints can be lodged, and the process for doing so, remain unpublished. Despite having a Committee on In-House Procedure, its reports and sanctions remain elusive.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court has shown commitment to financial transparency, with most judges disclosing their assets following a Full Court resolution in 2025. This stark contrast highlights that when institutional will aligns with transparency, meaningful progress is possible.
International Comparison and Recommendations
The report references the UK’s Judicial Conduct Investigations Office as a model, where detailed disciplinary statements are publicly accessible. It recommends Indian courts adopt similar transparency: publish codes of conduct, provide clear complaint mechanisms, and disclose sanction decisions comprehensively.
Legal Landscape and Precedents
Decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, such as the landmark cases K Veeraswami v. Union of India and In Re: Justice CS Karnan, illustrate the complexities of judicial accountability. While the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, is currently being tested in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma, it remains to be seen if resignation can preempt disciplinary findings.
The Call for Visible Accountability
The findings underscore a critical gap: India has a robust doctrine on judicial misconduct but lacks transparency in its application. The challenge remains to transform this doctrine into a publicly accessible and accountable system.
Shadab Khan is a third-year B.A.LL.B. student at the Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.
