Judicial justice must stand in full light of transparency

In a development that is as perplexing as it is troubling, it recently came to light that China's official online portal for court judgments was quietly blurring or erasing the names of presiding judges from published rulings. This was not a minor technical glitch but what appeared to be a deliberate act — one that several legal experts have criticized as reducing solemn judicial decisions to something resembling "anonymous storytelling" or, in a more cynical reading, "legal fiction".

The Supreme People's Court, China's top court, to its credit, responded with commendable speed, denouncing the practice as "wholly inappropriate" and mandating its immediate correction. This episode strikes at the core of a foundational bargain between the courts and citizens: that true justice must not only be done, but must be unmistakably and undeniably seen to be done.

For years, China has consistently championed judicial transparency as the nonnegotiable cornerstone of legal reform. The celebrated launch of China Judgments Online, the official website established by the top court to disclose verdicts, was a bold pledge of openness, a promise to let the disinfecting power of sunlight flood the halls of justice. This was powerfully reinforced by live-trial broadcasts and the strategic publication of landmark cases — all orchestrated to build public trust through unwavering visibility.

The guiding principle is clear: transparency is the rule, the expectation. Secrecy is a narrowly defined, legally constrained exception reserved for protecting State secrets or shielding the vulnerable, such as victims of domestic abuse or minors.

Yet, the redaction of judges' names represents a self-inflicted wound to this very principle. A judge's signature on a ruling is not a trivial formality; it is a responsibility toward litigants and the public.

In the public eye, this act of anonymization can feel eerily like justice operating behind a veil, fostering suspicion where there should be trust, and inviting speculation about fragility where there should be an image of unshakable strength.

Contrast this with the exemplary handling of the disturbing case involving a man surnamed Mu, who mentally abused his ex-girlfriend. It was highlighted by the top court in November as a landmark ruling that confirms humiliation and degrading treatment of family members as forms of domestic violence.

In the release of that case, the top court balanced necessary privacy with crucial transparency. While protecting the identity of the victim, it laid bare brutal facts of psychological manipulation, the rigorous legal logic applied, and the broader societal message, clarifying that domestic violence "is not limited to physical abuse such as hitting", and that Mu's sustained humiliation and demeaning behavior toward a family member amounted to psychological violence.

That was transparency executed with confidence and purpose. The name-redaction scandal feels like just the opposite — a needless retreat into the shadows. The top court's corrective order is a vital first step. But this incident cannot be dismissed as a one-off flaw. It follows a pattern of awkward stumbling in the march toward transparency.

Ultimately, the authority of the judiciary is built day by day, verdict by verdict. That in turn builds public confidence. For justice to be truly credible, its architects must stand in the full glare of accountability. The promise of "open justice" demands nothing less than courageous, consistent, and complete visibility — starting with the clear, proud signature of every judge on every public judgment they write.