Trust in public institutions depends on how transparent and understandable their processes and decisions are. The same principle applies to the judiciary. But what are the minimum standards of transparency courts should meet, and how well do Indian courts currently measure up?The Judicial Transparency Index, developed by the Justice Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) initiative at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, assesses court disclosures against recognised national and international standards. It found that no court in India currently ensures full transparency across all areas of its functioning.The 25 high courts scored an average of 42 out of 91 points, while the Supreme Court scored 53 out of 88, indicating moderate levels of openness. Among the high courts, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura made the most information available, according to the index.While the judiciary has repeatedly emphasised transparency and accountability through judgments and public statements by judges, the report found that progress remains uneven across courts and areas of functioning.
Access to proceedings
The open courts principle requires courts to facilitate public access to proceedings and decisions. While courts routinely publish cause lists and judgments, detailed guidelines on how non-litigants can access and observe proceedings are often missing.For instance, the citizen charters of the Punjab and Haryana and Delhi high courts state that entry passes are issued only to litigants whose cases are listed for the day, creating uncertainty for members of the public.This makes virtual access to hearings particularly important. However, live-streaming remains inconsistent, with only half of the high courts currently streaming proceedings. Among them, only four — Chhattisgarh, Gauhati, Gujarat and Telangana — covered more than 75% of courtrooms on a particular day.The Chhattisgarh High Court has since restricted live-streaming to PILs and cases involving substantial questions of law, showing how gains in transparency can also be reversed.
Case allocation and recusals
The public should also be able to understand how cases are allocated to judges and when, and on what grounds, a judge should recuse themselves.Most courts publish rosters assigning different categories of cases to judges. However, none discloses the basis on which cases are allocated.Similarly, no court prescribes criteria for judicial recusal. Only the Delhi High Court indicates the process through which a recusal can be requested.
Judicial appointments
Transparency gaps also extend to judicial appointments. Of the 24 high courts that publish recommendations for appointments to the district judiciary, only 14 disclose candidate-wise marks in recent select lists.Most courts provide reasons for transferring district judges, but these are often broad and generic, offering little clarity on the substantive grounds for non-routine transfers.
What can be done?
The study identifies several measures that could strengthen judicial transparency. One relatively simple step would be to introduce a “Public Access Guide” explaining how non-litigants can attend court proceedings.Courts could also maintain dedicated, searchable webpages for important notifications and rules.More substantive reforms — including publishing guidelines for recusals, disciplinary sanctions, and detailed reasons for judicial appointments and transfers — may take longer but could significantly improve accountability.The uneven nature of disclosures also points to the absence of a clear institutional policy governing transparency across courts. There is a need to establish what information should be disclosed, how it should be presented and how consistency can be ensured.The UK, for instance, has established a dedicated Transparency and Open Justice Board to set institution-wide objectives and facilitate their implementation.A more deliberate approach to transparency in India would not only make judicial information easier to access but also signal a stronger institutional commitment to openness and accountability.
