Why judiciary fighting shy of transparency?

Recently having set up high standard of transparency and fairplay for other wings of state and authorities the higher judiciary itself is putting up a stubborn resistance to any attempt by concerned citizen to pierce veil of secrecy hiding it from public gaze. It is just not comprehendable to a concerned citizen as to how judiciary is distinguishable from other wings of state and CJI is not an authority comparable to President of India or the Prime Minister. The main duties and functions of our judiciary are such that most of the times it has to discharge judicial function amidst acrimonious heated debates at bar in full public view without any scope for concealing any part of the proceeding except in exceptional trial in camera where too judge is not alone without assistance of lawyers. Apart from judicial function what are other functions and activities of CJI and the collegium which must be kept secret at all cost from the real sovereign the public. Other functions of higher judiciary includes selection of judges for subordinate and higher judiciary, regulating their service conditions, receiving complaints against Judges and other staffs, assigning post retirement assignments to the retired judges,selecting judges for foreign tours. Are the informations relating to these functions are of such nature like matters of internal and external security that must be kept behind iron curtain at all cost ? As yet judges have not been made accountable to any one, due to which many judges against whom charges of misconduct have been prima facie found true are continuing to disgrace the benches with impunity in view of impracticality of impeachment proceedings. Had only transparency been there in the administrative functions of higher judiciary there would have been lesser possibilities of episodes of Justice Dinakaran , Mazumdars so on and so forth. There would have brighter chances of elevation of only competent, hard working, fair, conscientious lawyers on the benches. As the judges made it compulsory for the politicians to declare their assets, they should have in all fairness applied the same yardsticks to themselves. Different treatment to judges in this matter in the name of protecting them from unscrupulous troublemakers is simply grossly irrational and a lousy logic, fallacy of which is apparent to even to a rural rustic. The judges having been already shielded with powers under the law of contempt do not more draconian antipeople powers to become above law, beyond the reach of the people's scrutiny and emerge like a entirely new type of aristocracy. The c.j.i. is well advised to read writings on the walls of democracy and stop behaving like a cantankerous litigant before Delhi High court which has rendered a great public service by declaring higher judiciary amenable to right to information. Right to information act, expresses will of the Sovereign and absolutely leaves no scope for interpretations. May wisdom dawn upon higher judiciary the repository of wisdom!