New Delhi: Seven years after the Supreme Court pledged greater transparency in collegium decisions, a fresh audit of India’s higher judiciary found that judicial appointments remain generic, case allocation rules are opaque, and High Courts are falling short on financial and RTI-related disclosures.
Importantly, none of the apex court’s past five resolutions provide reasons for recommending judges to the High Courts, placing a sharp focus on the transparency of the Collegium system.
Furthermore, even when reasons are provided for Supreme Court elevations, they are often generic—that candidates were evaluated on “merit, integrity and competence” without disclosing “specific and substantive reasons for recommending the candidate’s elevation”.
The implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act within the judiciary remains inconsistent. Alarmingly, the RTI rules of 15 High Courts prescribe “additional exemptions from disclosure of information, over and above those listed under Section 8 of the RTI Act”. These grounds are often described as “vague, overbroad and even mutually contradictory”.
Financial transparency is also a concern. As many as eight High Courts have not published any budget for current or previous financial years, and not a single High Court has made it a practice to release audit reports.
These are part of a comprehensive new report by the Justice Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) Initiative at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. A first-of-its-kind assessment of the Supreme Court and 25 High Courts, the report unveils the ‘Judicial Transparency Index’ by assessing disclosure of information by the SC and HCs.
Launched 1 August, the report is authored by senior resident fellow Jyotika Randhawa and research fellows Abhishek Rath and Navami Krishnamurthy. It finds that while progress has been made in digitising judgments, the judiciary faces systemic transparency challenges in critical areas such as case allocation, judge transfers, and the functioning of the Collegium.
The report highlights a lack of transparency regarding judicial transfers, noting that the Supreme Court does not provide a transfer policy for High Court judges on its website and its recent transfer resolutions “do not provide any reasons”.
Overall, there are 18 themes of transparency organised into three broad categories of judicial functioning: judicial processes, institutional governance and administration, and judicial and administrative personnel.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court emerged as the leader in institutional governance, followed closely by the Tripura High Court, which showed strong disclosures regarding judicial personnel. Conversely, the High Courts of Meghalaya and Bombay were found to provide “relatively less information than other courts,” particularly regarding budgetary disclosures and public access to hearings.
The Supreme Court itself exhibits “strong transparency in institutional governance and administration,” but its disclosures regarding judicial processes and personnel-related information were rated as only “moderate”.
Also Read: 8,630 complaints filed against sitting judges in past decade, data shows post-pandemic surge
Live streaming & case allocation
While 13 of the 25 High Courts have adopted live streaming to varying degrees, the report identifies a significant “gap between what courts state in their rules… and what occurs in practice”. Only four High Courts—Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Telangana, and Gauhati—live streamed more than 75 percent of their proceedings on a given day.
A more opaque area is case allocation. The report states that “no court publishes the criteria governing case allocation” on its websites. Transparency in how benches are constituted remains a major hurdle, as “judicial transparency in case allocation, recusals… and disciplinary actions leaves much to be desired”.
Personnel & asset disclosures
The report notes a “decline in the number of judges who disclose their assets” in some jurisdictions. While 90 percent of sitting Supreme Court judges have declared their assets following a 2025 resolution, the rates in High Courts vary widely. For example, 90 percent of judges in Kerala have made disclosures, compared to only 11 percent in Madras and 13.6 percent in Delhi. The report emphasises that “the voluntary nature of asset disclosures means that publication is often left to individual judges,” leading to significant variations over time.
Sanctioned & working strength
The report identifies a major gap between the disclosure of judge-related statistics and staff-related data. While 19 High Courts provide updated information on both sanctioned and working strength for judges, only five do so for their ministerial staff. In total, 16 High Courts completely lack updated information on staff strength. The High Courts of Allahabad, Calcutta, Manipur, Patna, and Tripura achieved full points by providing up-to-date data for both judges and staff.
List of Registry officials
Every High Court publishes a list of its registry officials. 23 High Courts provide at least one official contact for the registry, though the report notes missing contact details for the registries of Patna and the circuit benches of Calcutta. 20 High Courts also publish the specific roles and responsibilities of these officials.
Appointments & recruitment
This area shows a ‘moderate’ level of transparency, with concerns regarding the depth of reasons provided for recommendations. 24 High Courts publish the names of shortlisted candidates for district judges, but only 14 disclose their marks, which the report uses as a proxy for “reasons” for selection. One notable exception is Telangana, which publishes hall ticket numbers instead of names.
The Supreme Court publishes the appointment criteria for SC and HC judges, though these are often “buried among numerous other appointment and transfer resolutions”.
Transfers
While individual transfer orders are public, the underlying policies and justifications are often opaque. Only 14 High Courts publish a formal transfer policy for district judges. However, all 25 publish individual transfer orders, and 18 provide reasons in some or all of these orders.
The Supreme Court does not provide a transfer policy for High Court judges on its website. While it publishes Collegium resolutions for these transfers, the report notes that no reasons were provided in the past five resolutions.
Code of conduct
Not a single High Court publishes a code of conduct for its judges on its website. Only two courts (Jammu & Kashmir and Tripura) publish information on sanctions imposed on district judicial officers.
The Supreme Court does publish the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life,’ which serves as a code of conduct. However, it does not publish the procedure for filing complaints against judges, nor are any actual sanction orders or investigation reports available on its website.
Reforms suggested
The authors conclude that “transparency in judicial functioning is central to public trust and independence of the judiciary”. The report recommends that all courts adopt a formal policy governing case allocation to clarify how cases are assigned to benches. Furthermore, principal judges should publicly articulate reasons for reallocation when deviating from established criteria. For recusals, courts should develop and publish clear recusal policies or SOPs for litigants to file for the recusal of a judge.
High Courts are encouraged to adopt the Supreme Court’s ‘Citizen’s Charter’ model, which consolidates essential visitor details (working hours, facilities, etc.) into a single resource. Regarding live streaming, the report suggests courts clearly specify which categories of proceedings will, in practice, be streamed to align public expectations with reality.
Courts should provide sufficient detail in cause lists, including relevant live streaming and video conferencing links, and publish them at least 24 hours in advance. To improve readability, the report recommends translating all judgments into regional languages, prioritizing those of significant public importance.
A key recommendation for High Courts is to publish audit reports annually to foster public accountability. Courts should maintain regularly updated databases of budgets and expenditure statements for both High Courts and district courts in dedicated website sections.
To prevent arbitrary rejections, the report suggests that courts clearly define exemptions and limit restrictions on RTI disclosures to only those listed under the RTI Act. They should also provide updated contact details for Public Information Officers (PIOs) for each bench.
Courts should proactively release non-confidential minutes of committee meetings. Under the PoSH Act, High Courts must set up Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) for each individual bench and empower them to receive complaints against High Court judges.
Reforms on judicial & administrative staff
The report recommends publishing a code of conduct for judges. It also suggests providing an accessible mechanism (online and offline) for filing complaints against judges and publishing information on sanctions imposed, including detailed disciplinary statements.
For the district judiciary, High Courts should ensure the publication of ‘Select Lists’ that disclose both the names and the marks of recommended candidates. For transfers, courts should set out clear and objective grounds for mid-tenure transfers and provide detailed, specific reasons in transfer orders rather than broad terms like “administrative interest”.
Further, the report recommends voluntary but complete disclosure of assets, including the overall value and nature of real estate, investments, and liabilities, by all judges.
SC-specific recommendations
The report offers additional tailored suggestions for the Supreme Court. On Collegium transparency, the court should record specific and substantive reasons for recommending the appointment and transfer of judges, ensuring consistent implementation of its own 2017 transparency resolution.
Another suggestion is that the Supreme Court should make the broad criteria guiding roster allocation and bench constitution public. It should also formulate a clear policy governing its use of Artificial Intelligence.
Plus, to support research, the court should work toward providing anonymized versions of digital pleadings, particularly in cases of public importance.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: In SC judge Ujjal Bhuyan’s candour beyond the courtroom, some questions for the judiciary