The Judicial Transparency Index

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:

1. Judicial processes;
2. Institutional governance and administration; and
3. 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. 

The Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in India (JALDI) Initiative at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy works to improve the administration of justice through rigorous empirical research and evidence-based policy recommendations. Learn more about our work here.

About the Authors

Jyotika Randhawa (Senior Resident Fellow)

Jyotika is a Senior Resident Fellow with the Justice, Access, and Lowering Delays (JALDI) team at Vidhi. She completed her B.A.LLB. from ILS Law College and went on to pursue her Master's from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. She has worked extensively within the Juvenile Justice System as part of her fieldwork at TISS. Her interests lie at the intersection of law, research, and advocacy and include Criminal law, Criminology, and Human Rights law. When not working, Jyotika enjoys reading, painting, and spending time with cats.

Abhishek Rath  (Research Fellow)

Abhishek Rath is a Research Fellow with the JALDI team at Vidhi. He graduated with a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from National Law University Odisha in 2025. During law school, he interned with leading research and advocacy organisations as well as at the Supreme Court of India. His research interests lie in human rights jurisprudence, constitutional law, and institutional reforms. Outside of work, Abhishek is passionate about quizzing, films, and chess.

Navami Krishnamurthy (Research Fellow)

Navami Krishnamurthy is a Research Fellow for the Founder’s Office at Vidhi Karnataka. Her research interests lie in the areas of constitutional law, criminal and gender justice and their interplay with society. Before joining Vidhi, Navami worked under Senior Advocate Dr. Aditya Sondhi at his Bangalore chambers and engaged in constitutional, criminal and civil matters as well as research in the areas of criminal and constitutional law. She holds an undergraduate degree (BA LLB (Hons.) Programme) in law from OP Jindal Global University, Sonepat. Her hobbies include travelling, watching true-crime documentaries, horror movies and reading.