Question 1

The Supreme Court was forced by legislation or a court order to disclose judges' assets publicly

Accepted Answer

The disclosure was a voluntary institutional decision through a Full Court resolution dated 1 April 2025. No legislation mandates it â€” the RTI Act creates a framework for responding to information requests, but proactive publication was the Court's own initiative

Question 2

The NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) was intended to bring financial transparency to the judiciary

Accepted Answer

The NJAC under the 99th Constitutional Amendment (struck down 16 October 2015, 4:1) was about judicial appointments, not asset disclosure. It sought to replace the Collegium with a six-member commission including the Law Minister and two eminent persons, addressing who selects judges, not how sitting judges are held accountable financially

Question 3

How many of the following statements regarding judicial asset disclosure in India are correct?
1. The 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life required judges to declare assets to the Chief Justice of India confidentially.
2. The Full Court resolution of 1 April 2025 made public asset disclosure mandatory for all Supreme Court judges.
3. In CPIO v Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), a five-judge bench held that the office of the CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act.
4. The 99th Constitutional Amendment established the framework for mandatory public disclosure of judicial assets.

Accepted Answer

(c) Only three — Statements 1, 2, and 3 are correct. Statement 4 is wrong â€” the 99th Constitutional Amendment dealt with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), not asset disclosure. The NJAC was about replacing the Collegium system for appointing judges, and was struck down by the Supreme Court on 16 October 2015 in a 4:1 verdict.

Question 4

Match the following judicial milestones with their correct descriptions:
List I: A. Second Judges Case (1993), B. Third Judges Case (1998), C. 1997 Restatement of Values, D. CPIO v Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019)
List II: 1. Established that the CJI's office is a public authority under the RTI Act, 2. Required judges to declare assets confidentially to the CJI, 3. Established Collegium primacy â€” CJI + 2 senior-most judges for SC appointments, 4. Expanded Collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most judges for SC appointments

Accepted Answer

(a) A-3, B-4, C-2, D-1 — The Second Judges Case (1993) established the Collegium of CJI + 2 senior-most judges. The Third Judges Case (1998) expanded this to CJI + 4 senior-most judges. The 1997 Restatement required confidential asset declarations to the CJI. CPIO v Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) declared the CJI's office a public authority under RTI.

Question 5

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court's Full Court resolution of 1 April 2025 on mandatory asset disclosure represents a significant departure from the 1997 Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.
Reason (R): The 1997 Restatement required judges to declare assets publicly on the Supreme Court's website.

Accepted Answer

(c) A is correct but R is incorrect — The Assertion is correct â€” the 2025 resolution fundamentally changed the disclosure regime from confidential to public. The Reason is incorrect because the 1997 Restatement required judges to declare assets only confidentially to the Chief Justice of India, not publicly on any website.

Supreme Court Discloses Judges' Assets

CDSCO Mandates Phase III Trial for Baloxavir