Turn on the Lights: Make Justice Visible
Prof. (Dr.) Sunil Goyal
Eminent Social Scientist, Professor and Columnist
Department of Higher Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh
Email gasspub@gmail.com Mobile 9425382228
India's judiciary derives its authority not merely from constitutional provisions but from public confidence. Courts command respect because citizens believe justice is impartial, transparent, and accountable. The recently released Judicial Transparency Index offers an opportunity to assess whether India's judicial institutions are keeping pace with modern expectations of openness. Its findings suggest that while considerable progress has been made in digitisation, significant reforms remain necessary to strengthen public trust.
One of the encouraging findings is the widespread availability of judgments online. Nearly all High Courts provide free public access to judgments and orders through searchable databases, making legal information more accessible than ever before. The availability of judgments in regional languages has also improved in many jurisdictions, helping democratise access to justice beyond English-speaking legal circles.
However, transparency extends beyond publishing judgments. It also requires citizens to understand how judicial decisions are reached and how cases are assigned to judges.
The report identifies case allocation as one of the least transparent areas of India's judicial administration. While most High Courts publish subject-wise rosters indicating which judges hear particular categories of cases, virtually none publicly disclose the objective criteria governing roster preparation or bench constitution. Even more concerning, no High Court requires formal public recording of reasons whenever established allocation practices are altered.
This gap matters because perceptions of impartiality begin long before a judgment is delivered. Random, rule-based allocation of cases is an internationally recognised safeguard against arbitrariness. Transparency in allocation protects both judges and litigants by reducing speculation regarding bench selection.
The report highlights an interesting example from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which earlier experimented with an automated case distribution system designed to ensure equitable allocation among benches. Although later roster modifications have introduced subject-specific jurisdictions, the initiative demonstrated that technology can improve procedural fairness.
Another area requiring urgent attention concerns judicial recusals. Public confidence depends upon clear procedures when judges voluntarily withdraw from hearing matters involving potential conflicts of interest. Yet the report notes that no High Court presently publishes comprehensive recusal policies, while only the Delhi High Court provides procedural guidance for litigants seeking recusal.
Internationally, judicial transparency has evolved beyond courtroom proceedings. Courts increasingly publish administrative policies, performance statistics, allocation algorithms, conflict-of-interest guidelines, and annual accountability reports. Such measures strengthen—not weaken—judicial independence by demonstrating institutional integrity.
India has already shown remarkable progress in judicial digitisation. E-filing, virtual hearings, online cause lists, digitised records, and publicly accessible judgments have transformed court administration over the past decade. These reforms deserve recognition. But transparency must evolve from information availability to institutional openness.
The solution does not require constitutional amendments or radical restructuring. Relatively modest administrative reforms could substantially improve public confidence. Every High Court should publish objective rules governing case allocation, maintain regularly updated rosters, disclose reasons for significant roster changes, establish transparent recusal procedures, and publish annual transparency reports covering judicial administration.
Equally important is standardisation across jurisdictions. Citizens should enjoy similar levels of judicial transparency regardless of the state in which they seek justice. A nationally coordinated framework—while respecting judicial independence—could encourage best practices without compromising the autonomy of individual courts.
Transparency should never be mistaken for external interference. Independent institutions become stronger when their procedures are visible, predictable, and understandable. Openness reduces unnecessary suspicion, enhances institutional legitimacy, and reinforces the constitutional promise of equal justice.
India's judiciary remains one of the strongest pillars of its democracy. As courts continue embracing digital transformation, the next frontier must be procedural transparency. Justice should not only be delivered fairly; it should also be administered in ways that the public can clearly understand and confidently trust.
