壹快评｜根除“法官隐名”背后的权力本位思想痼疾

Core Viewpoint - The recent incident regarding the omission of judges' names and case numbers in judicial documents highlights a deeper issue of ingrained attitudes towards information transparency within the judicial system, indicating a need for systemic change to ensure public access to information and uphold citizens' rights [1][2][3]. Group 1: Judicial Information Transparency - The Supreme People's Court acknowledged that the practice of omitting judges' names and case numbers was inappropriate and has mandated corrections from relevant courts [1]. - The error was attributed to a lack of familiarity with the requirements for anonymizing documents, reflecting a subconscious bias towards non-disclosure of judicial information [2]. - This incident underscores a significant ideological inertia where public information is viewed as a privilege rather than an obligation, which poses a serious barrier to transparency [3]. Group 2: Progress and Challenges in Judicial Openness - Since the establishment of the China Judgments Online platform in 2013, there has been significant progress in judicial transparency, providing valuable resources for research and public inquiry [3][4]. - The online publication of judicial documents has been a milestone achievement, promoting judicial fairness and enhancing the quality of judges [4]. - Despite the recent correction of the "judge anonymization" error, the underlying ideological issues remain a persistent obstacle to advancing information transparency [4][5]. Group 3: Future Directions for Information Disclosure - Continuous education, strict institutional constraints, and robust supervision are necessary to eliminate the deep-rooted misconceptions regarding public power and information rights [4]. - Ensuring the public's right to know and supervise is essential for maintaining the proper functioning of power and advancing national governance modernization [5].