Citizens Have a Right to Know Their Judges: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Judicial Transparency and Open Courts Doctrine
EduLaw EditorialLegal UpdatesABSTRACT The principle of open justice occupies a foundational position in constitutional democracies. Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, delivering his keynote address at the launch of the "Judicial Transparency Index: Assessing Disclosure of Information by the Supreme Court and the High Courts" prepared by the JALDI Initiative at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, reaffirmed that transparency is not an incidental virtue of governance but its very precondition. Justice Bhuyan observed that citizens possess a fundamental right to know what is happening in courts, who their judges are, and the nature of judgments delivered. He emphasized that judicial proceedings, deliberations, and decisions must remain in the public domain to strengthen accountability, reinforce judicial independence, and sustain public confidence in the justice delivery system. His Lordship questioned the continued use of the sealed cover procedure as inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India and criticized the recent Collegium resolutions for failing to record reasons for recommending judicial appointments — a departure he described as "going back on the transparency principle." ARTICLE BODY The relationship between publicity and justice is as old as organized legal systems themselves. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, in his keynote address, traced the philosophical genealogy of open justice from Plato and Hegel to Jeremy Bentham, whose celebrated maxim remains the lodestar of this discourse: "In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Where there is no publicity, there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial." Justice Bhuyan observed that every legal system that claims to administer justice must answer an old and uncomfortable question — who watches the watchman? His Lordship asserted that this question finds its constitutional answer in the principle of open courts, which subjects the exercise of judicial power to the scrutiny of those in whose name it is exercised: the citizens of India. Justice Bhuyan's address acquired particular significance because of its institutional context. The Judicial Transparency Index, the first systematic study assessing transparency practices across India's higher judiciary, evaluated disclosure of information by the Supreme Court and High Courts across judicial processes, institutional governance and administration, and judicial and administrative personnel using more than 70 indicators. While acknowledging that the Indian judiciary has taken "significant strides" towards greater openness, Justice Bhuyan observed that much more remains to be done. He specifically requested that future editions of the index should also assess the opacity of the Collegium system, noting that "deliberations on elevation and transfer of judges remain confidential, reasons for rejecting or deferring a recommendation are rarely disclosed in full, and the criteria applied are not codified in any publicly disclosed instrument." His Lordship stated unequivocally: "Citizens have a right to know what is happening in the courts. They have a right to know who would be their judges. They have a right to know judgments. These should be in the public domain." The constitutional foundation of open justice in India was authoritatively established by the nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 . In that landmark case, a journalist challenged an order restraining publication of witness testimony during defamation proceedings. Chief Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, speaking for the Bench, declared: "In general, all cases brought before the courts, whether civil, criminal or others, must be heard in open court. Public trial in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy, objective and fair administration of justice. Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness, objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice." Justice Bhuyan quoted this passage extensively, underscoring that while limited exceptions exist — particularly for in camera proceedings in sensitive matters — the general and overriding principle remains one of full publicity. He also referred to the concurring opinion of Justice Bachawat in the same case, which declared that "a court of justice is a public forum" and that "it is through publicity that the citizens are convinced that the court renders even-handed justice." The modern technological expression of the open courts doctrine is live streaming of judicial proceedings. Justice Bhuyan identified this as the "most visible development in terms of transparency in the last decade" and discussed th