Supreme Court makes judges' family ties, assets public in major transparency push
In a major push for transparency and awareness for the public, the Supreme Court has started to publish the asset declarations and familial ties of the sitting judges on its official website, in accordance with a full-court decision to place the relevant details in the public domain. The asset declarations cover judges' movable property and gold, as well as investments held by them, their spouses, and joint family members.
Statements of assets of 21 judges that the Supreme Court has already received are being uploaded for the public and declaration of assets of other judges will be uploaded as and when the current statement of assets is received, the court said.
In a notification dated May 5, the Supreme Court said that it has also placed complete details of the appointment process to the high courts and the top court on its website. Also Read | Supreme Court rejects bail for ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt. Here's why…
The details include 'process of appointments to the High Courts and Supreme Court including the role assigned to the High Court Collegium, the role and inputs received from the State Governments, Government of India, and consideration by the Supreme Court Collegium, on its website for knowledge and awareness of the public.'
The details also include the proposals approved by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointments as High Court Judges during the period 9th November 2022 to 5th May 2025, including the names, High Court, source whether from Service or Bar, date of recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium, date of notification by Department of Justice, date of appointment, and special category (SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Woman)".
The information in public mentions whether candidates' familial ties such as if they are related to any retired or sitting judge of the high court/Supreme Court.
'Statements of assets of Judges already received are being uploaded. Statement of assets of other Judges will be uploaded as and when the current statement of assets is received,' the Supreme Court said.
First Published: 6 May 2025, 08:38 AM IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Lesson from stampedes: Communication key to crowd control, say experts
This year, stampedes at a major railway station in Delhi, at the Maha Kumbh in Uttar Pradesh, and during a cricket match victory celebration in Karnataka have led to at least 72 deaths and a few hundred injuries so far — a grim statistic which exposes the glaring gaps in crowd regulation rules, official apathy and tokenistic governance. Action taken following these tragic, largely preventable deaths does little to avert such incidents in the future — after the June 4 stampede in Bengaluru, the state leadership, replicating the action of its counterparts in other parts of the country, suspending the city's top cop and other police staff, and ordered a magisterial inquiry. Later, the Karnataka high court also took suo motu notice. In light of these developments, HT spoke with veteran police officers, planners, urban designers, and academics to dissect the anatomy of stampedes and how to prevent them. Prakash Singh, a retired IPS officer who was the state police chief of Assam and Uttar Pradesh and the director-general of the Border Security Force, said the Bengaluru tragedy appears to be a case of overriding political desire overruling reservations from the police. Multiple reports, including by HT, suggest that the police had initially dismissed the idea of a parade due to paucity of time. But as some players from the overseas were scheduled to return home, there was a rush to hold the celebrations on June 4 itself, according to people aware of the matter. 'But this should have never been made part of the consideration. No event can be organised without the clearance from the police,' Singh said. The second issue, he pointed out, was the inconsistent messaging. 'There were multiple versions of when and where the parade will be held.' The most significant lapse, however, was the police's alleged failure to react when the crowd started trickling, Singh said. 'Around 200,000-300,000 people tried to make their way towards the stadium when the capacity was only 36,000. It was a policing failure, given that there are enough surveillance measures that would have indicated swelling of crowds.' Police should have, through existing intelligence and surveillance measures, prevented the crowd from converge from all directions. Another lapse was the inadequate deployment of forces, he added. 'Ideally, civic volunteers, armed battalions, and the fire brigade should have been mobilised. If there was fatigue, police from outside the commissionerate should have been engaged, he said. While Karnataka home minister G Parameshwara has announced that the government will formulate a new SOP for crowd control, these mechanisms are not alien to India, where heavy footfall events such as the Maha Kumbh are held regularly. They have been part of the police manual since colonial times, and even the National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA) has issued guidelines to manage crowds at events. To prevent stampedes, the administration — be it government, private organisers or temple trusts— should actively control the 'hype' through constant messaging, said Monika Vij, a geography professor at Delhi's Miranda House, who has researched extensively on crowd management at religious events. Referring to the Kumbh tragedy in January, where the official death toll was 30, she said, while the authorities made 'excellent arrangements', the hype of a historical event overshadowed everything. Authorities could not effectively communicate with the crowd when the stampede took place, she said. 'There has to be greater control and responsibility over disseminating information.' On the Bengaluru stampede, she said it was the 'lack of clarity over the venue and ticketing' which led to the tragedy. Similar confusion was seen at the February 15 stampede at the New Delhi Railway Station over train departures, Vij said. Another retired IPS officer Nazrul Islam, who was the ADGP in West Bengal, said a crowd, by default, is fuelled by frenzy and not rationality — be it a religious procession or a sports event. 'Visible, prompt policing is important to keep the crowd disciplined. Staggered movement of crowds is essential, and for that, checkpoints are installed in all directions from approaches to the event venue,' he said. KT Ravindran, founder of the Institute of Urban Designers India, said, for any kind of gathering, authorities must ensure that designing standards, such as entry and exit points and emergency exit, are followed. 'At any point in time, the potential to disperse should be higher than the potential to gather.' Ujan Ghosh, the former president of the institute, said the combined action of authorities, including police, along with the architecture, either prevents or causes a stampede. He also questioned if the Bengaluru stadium was the right choice as the venue for the cricket felicitation event. Spaces, such as streets and pavements, are often designed for specific purposes, he said, suggesting that stadiums are usually for ticketed events.
Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Democracy without dissent a contradiction: Justice Surya Kant
Democracy without dissent is a contradiction and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity, Supreme Court judge justice Surya Kant has asserted as he invoked India's constitutional ethos and the top court's role in defending civil liberties. Justice Kant, who is in line to take over as the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in November this year, was speaking at the Washington Supreme Court as part of an international judicial exchange. In his address earlier this week that underscored the shared constitutional commitments of India and the United States, the judge said: 'Democracy without dissent is a contradiction, and that silence in the face of injustice is not neutrality, but complicity…These are not merely legal precedents; they are constitutional declarations.' Justice Kant highlighted that the right to free speech, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the First Amendment in the US, has been 'zealously defended' by courts on both sides of the Atlantic. Drawing parallels with the US Supreme Court's protection of student protest in Tinker Vs Des Moines (1969), he recalled how India's top court, much earlier, had established the primacy of expression in Romesh Thappar and Brij Bhushan cases in 1950, ruling against pre-censorship and vague notions of public order. 'In both countries, the judiciary has consistently pushed back against the temptation to suppress dissent under misguided and deceptive notions that the executive may hold,' he noted. Reaffirming the foundational nature of constitutional supremacy in both democracies, Justice Kant highlighted that the basic structure doctrine in India that asserts Parliament cannot amend away core constitutional values mirrors the American principle that 'even the majoritarian will must bow' before foundational ideals like liberty, federalism, and equality. 'These doctrines reflect a shared understanding that tampering with these principles would cause a rift so immense that it would threaten the very heart of our existence,' he warned. ALSO READ | Free speech, democracy, and the epidemic of hurt feelings Justice Kant also spotlighted India's global leadership in using public interest litigation (PIL) as a judicial tool to redress collective harm. Citing the Vishaka judgment (1997) where the Indian Supreme Court laid down workplace sexual harassment guidelines in the absence of legislation, he said: 'Though structurally distinct, both approaches reflect a shared judicial philosophy: that justice must not be confined to individual litigants but must be responsive to collective harm and systemic failure.' In contrast, he acknowledged the role of class action lawsuits in the US, such as Lois Jenson Vs Eveleth Taconite Co (1993), where female workers collectively challenged workplace abuse. Addressing the evolution of due process jurisprudence, Justice Kant recalled how the Indian Constitution initially adopted 'procedure established by law' over the American-style 'due process,' but eventually evolved the latter through judicial interpretation. 'In the seminal Maneka Gandhi case (1978), the Indian Supreme Court read into the phrase the requirements of justice, fairness, and reasonableness -- effectively harmonizing our doctrine with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,' he added. Justice Kant concluded his address on a note of judicial kinship, stating: 'It is my firm belief that our countries, and our legal systems, share a kindred spirit rooted in the pursuit of justice, liberty, and the rule of law… The law must be a shield for the weak, not a sword for the powerful.'
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Vishalgad Urs not held, yet 1,300 devotees went to fort for prayers at dargah
Kolhapur: Around 1,300 devotees visited Vishalgad to offer prayers at Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan's shrine on Sunday. The traditional four-day Urs, scheduled to begin on Sunday, was cancelled following restrictions by the state archaeology department. The Bakrid qurbani proceeded according to Bombay high court guidelines. While the Urs typically draws thousands of attendees, recent campaigns by right-wing organisations against encroachments have led to reduced attendance. The previous year's event was marred by violence over encroachment issues. The animal sacrifice ritual was conducted under strict protocols, requiring enclosed private premises. The area was surrounded by metal sheets to ensure compliance. Devotees from various regions queued early to climb to the fort, presenting identification such as Aadhaar cards for registration. The administration limited visits between 9am and 5pm, prohibiting overnight stays. All 1,300 registered visitors completed their darshan/prayers within the stipulated time. Sub-divisional officer Sameer Shingate, of the Pannala division, said: "Everyone left the fort before 5pm. Police bandobast and scrutiny will remain in place for three more days." Although the dargah trust officials proposed a modest Urs celebration, authorities implemented a complete prohibition. Kolhapur's superintendent of police Yogeshkumar Gupta said the administration has challenged the HC ruling permitting animal sacrifice at the fort in the Supreme Court. Right-wing groups opposed the HC decision, demanding the prohibition of both Urs and animal sacrifice at the historic 11th-century fort. These groups celebrated the administration's decision to ban the Urs as their success. Kolhapur: Around 1,300 devotees visited Vishalgad to offer prayers at Hazrat Peer Malik Rehan's shrine on Sunday. The traditional four-day Urs, scheduled to begin on Sunday, was cancelled following restrictions by the state archaeology department. The Bakrid qurbani proceeded according to Bombay high court guidelines. While the Urs typically draws thousands of attendees, recent campaigns by right-wing organisations against encroachments have led to reduced attendance. The previous year's event was marred by violence over encroachment issues. The animal sacrifice ritual was conducted under strict protocols, requiring enclosed private premises. The area was surrounded by metal sheets to ensure compliance. Devotees from various regions queued early to climb to the fort, presenting identification such as Aadhaar cards for registration. The administration limited visits between 9am and 5pm, prohibiting overnight stays. All 1,300 registered visitors completed their darshan/prayers within the stipulated time. Sub-divisional officer Sameer Shingate, of the Pannala division, said: "Everyone left the fort before 5pm. Police bandobast and scrutiny will remain in place for three more days." Although the dargah trust officials proposed a modest Urs celebration, authorities implemented a complete prohibition. Kolhapur's superintendent of police Yogeshkumar Gupta said the administration has challenged the HC ruling permitting animal sacrifice at the fort in the Supreme Court. Right-wing groups opposed the HC decision, demanding the prohibition of both Urs and animal sacrifice at the historic 11th-century fort. These groups celebrated the administration's decision to ban the Urs as their success.
