A defence of the indefensible is bound to lead to embarrassment. The Union law minister, Veerappa Moily, and the government discovered this in the Rajya Sabha on Monday. Mr Moily, on behalf of the government, was presenting to the Upper House the judges (declaration of assets and liabilities) bill when he received a barrage of opposition and criticism from members belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and even the Congress. The strength of the Opposition and the lack of favourable numbers in the government forced the law minister to withdraw the proposed bill. It is not difficult to understand why this bill was at the receiving end of so much hostility cutting across political barriers. Critics of the bill pointed out that Clause VI of the proposed bill provides “protection to judges” when they declare their assets. The clause says very clearly that other laws notwithstanding, no declaration made by a member of the judiciary shall be made public or disclosed or questioned by any citizen or court authority. In practical terms, this puts members of the judiciary outside the purview of the Right to Information Act and, therefore, of any kind of public transparency.

There are two kinds of contradictions implicated in this bill. One is that while all other holders of public office are subject to the RTI Act, judges are not. As Arun Jaitley, a BJP member of the Rajya Sabha, pointed out, there cannot be two standards — one for, say, those contesting elections and aspiring for public office, and another for those serving in the judiciary. The other is even more fundamental. Why, in a democracy, should any holder of public office — and thus being paid for by the taxpayers’ money — be above the RTI Act and public scrutiny? The idea of transparency is crucial for the healthy functioning of a democratic system. The very idea that some men are more equal than others and are therefore above the law is abhorrent to the notion of democracy. Members of the judiciary have been given the profound responsibility of ensuring that the laws of the land are maintained and not transgressed. This should guarantee that judges should not be above the law, any law. This simple, almost self-evident, truth escaped Mr Moily and the authors of the bill. It was an embarrassment richly deserved, but easily avoided.