Report
The Judicial Transparency Index: Assessing disclosure of information by the Supreme Court and the High Courts
Report content
Transparency in judicial functioning is central to public trust and independence of the judiciary. In recent times, stakeholders from across the Bar, Bench and beyond, have stressed on enhancing the level of transparency in the institution. Appointments and transfers, disciplinary action against judges, and allocation of cases among benches are just some of the areas over which calls have recently been made for releasing more information. In order to strengthen institutional openness, it is first necessary to understand how much information regarding the judiciary is currently publicly available, and where further proactive disclosures are needed from courts. This report is the first systematic study of transparency practices in the higher judiciary. What the study does This report assesses the disclosure of information by the Supreme Court and the High Courts on their official websites. It applies the Judicial Transparency Index (JTI) framework developed by the Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) Initiative, which establishes baseline standards based on national and international transparency benchmarks. Drawing upon the system of classification outlined in the JTI, the report studies disclosures across three categories: Judicial processes; Institutional governance and administration; and Judicial and administrative personnel. A total of 74 indicators have been used to examine the High Courts and 71 indicators for the Supreme Court. Court websites were reviewed using these indicators over a period of three months between November 2025 and February 2026. Consistent with our understanding of transparency as proactive disclosure, this assessment is limited to information available on courts' official websites. Information available elsewhere online has not been considered unless it is linked from the relevant court's website. Key findings High Courts Judicial Processes : Court websites were reviewed to assess the availability of information necessary to facilitate public and media access to courts, court documents, and disclosures related to case allocation and recusals. There was a fairly uniform trend in disclosure of judicial process related information by courts, with most courts showing moderate levels of disclosure. 13 High Courts live stream their proceedings to some degree. Notably, four High Courts live streamed more than 75% of their court halls on a given day. All 25 High Courts have been publishing their cause lists, with eight publishing them 24 hours in advance. Only eight High Courts publish media access policies. Institutional Governance and Administration : Courts were examined here for disclosures relating to internal court administration, statutory compliances, and financial information. While courts displayed varying levels of compliance with the RTI Act and the PoSH Act, there is room for improvement in the area of financial disclosures. 11 High Courts publish the full contact information of their Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs). All 25 High Courts have published their Right to Information (RTI) Rules. However, 15 High Courts have added restrictions in their Rules exceeding the scope of the RTI Act. Eight High Courts have not published budget figures for either the current Financial Year or any of the previous Financial Years. Judicial and administrative personnel : Court websites were reviewed for personnel-related information across areas such as appointments, transfers, and disclosure of assets. While courts disclose significant information in areas such as judicial appointments and transfers, their disclosures in areas such as disciplinary proceedings and assets remain limited. 24 High Courts publish the lists containing the names of candidates recommended for appointment to the district judiciary. 87 judges across seven High Courts currently disclose their assets to varying degrees. Only two High Courts publish information on sanctions imposed on district judicial officers. Supreme Court The Court does moderately well in disclosures relating to judicial processes. Its website provides key information to facilitate public and media access. Live streaming of its proceedings is, however, currently limited to Constitution Bench proceedings. The Court makes the most information available in the area of institutional governance and administration. Its website publishes the latest budget and expenditure statements. Also, information relating to compliance with the PoSH Act, 2013 is available on a dedicated webpage. As far as disclosures relating to judicial and administrative personnel are concerned, the Court has done strongly in some areas while leaving room for improvement in others. While it has published the process for investigating complaints against Supreme Court and High Court judges, it does not disclose inquiry committee reports or sanction orders. Additionally, recent Collegium resolutions concerning appointments and transfers of Supreme Court and High Court judges are available online, though many do not provide reasons for the recommendations. By mapping the existing transparency landscape, and highlighting best practices and areas for improvement, this report seeks to encourage further discussion on judicial transparency and foster greater institutional openness of the judiciary. We have consolidated our suggestions into a Toolkit to aid courts with actionable recommendations, prioritized implementation strategies, and global best practices for improving transparency.
Report document
The_Judicial_Transparency_Index_-_Supreme_Court_and_High_Courts.pdf
Authors
Jyotika Randhawa
Senior Resident Fellow
At JALDI, I have worked on engagements with the National Court Management Systems’ Human Resource Sub-committee; and the Telangana State Judicial Academy (POCSO and Judicial Data Management training sessions). Other projects that I have worked on are Re-imagined Civil Rules of Practice (process re-engineering); Differentiated Case Management for the Indian Judiciary (case management, process re-engineering); and the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal (data analysis, assessing courts’ capacity). I have previously provided research assistance for the report ‘A Decade of POCSO: Developments, Challenges, and Insights from Judicial Data’ (assessing courts’ capacity). I have completed my B.A.LLB. from ILS Law College, Pune in 2020 and obtained my Master’s in Social Work in Criminology from Tata Institute of Social Sciences in 2022. My vision for the Indian judiciary entails a system that is accessible to all, down to the very vulnerable sections of the society. The judiciary must adopt a holistic approach and work in tandem with ancillary institutions such as legal aid clinics, social workers, and the Juvenile Justice System to be able implement effective justice. When not working, I enjoy reading, sketching and spending time with my cats.
Abhishek Rath
Research Fellow
I have primarily carried out research focused on judicial diversity at JALDI. My work explores the intersection of human rights and institutional reform, examining how technological innovation can strengthen judicial efficiency and advance access to justice. I graduated with a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from National Law University Odisha in 2025. During law school, I interned with various research organisations like DAKSH and Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR) as well as with the Centre for Research and Planning (CRP), Supreme Court of India. I have also published on platforms like the Oxford Human Rights Hub (OHRH) blog and LSE's Human Rights Blog. My vision of an ideal judiciary is one that catalyses the realisation of our lofty constitutional ideals in the lives of the marginalised. Only an accountable, responsive and humane judiciary can recognise and safeguard the status of individuals as dignified, rights-bearing citizens while being responsive to shifting social realities. Outside of work, I enjoy quizzing, watching films and playing chess.
Navami Krishnamurthy
Research Fellow
I currently work with JALDI on issues relating to judicial transparency and accountability, where my role involves collecting and analysing data from courts across India to assess how effectively information is disseminated to the public. I hold a B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) from O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonepat. My academic and professional interests lie at the intersection of law and society, with a focus on constitutional and criminal law. Prior to this, I worked as a junior advocate and researcher in the chambers of Senior Advocate Dr. Aditya Sondhi, where I was engaged in matters spanning constitutional, criminal, and civil law. During my final year at law school, I completed a year-long Criminal Justice Fellowship at Project 39A, Delhi, and have also interned with DAKSH and CLPR. I regularly write on issues of law and public policy for platforms such as Bar & Bench, The Indian Express, and Deccan Herald. I believe that an ideal judiciary is one that remains self-reflective and receptive to change, diverse opinions, and constructive criticism at every stage of its functioning and decision-making. I love watching movies and tv shows and then extensively reading about them on twitter!