Judges in the Indian judiciary system are required to declare their assets, but there is a catch. It is done internally to the Chief Justice of India, and these asset details are available to the public only on a voluntary basis. That means, if a judge does not want the people of India to know about his or her assets, it is at their discretion.
In a recent, rather controversial decision, the Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, so that he could campaign
Bill C-63 specifically noted that anyone who commits an offence under any Act of Parliament where is motivated by hatred based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, would be considered an indictable offence. The penalty for such an offence can be as severe as life imprisonment.
The ex-judges pointed to the spread of false theories meant to harm the judiciary's reputation and the "overt and covert attempts to influence judicial outcomes in their favour."
The complicit role of the establishment raises serious concerns about its commitment to democracy and accountability. Instead of upholding democratic principles, it appears to be compounding the challenges faced by the judiciary, further eroding the foundations of democracy.
Congress manifesto promises, "More women and persons belonging to the SC, ST, OBC and minorities will be appointed as judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court,"