Courts will not tolerate attempts to defame it: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant

In an escalating confrontation between India's judiciary and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), a new Class 8 textbook has ignited widespread controversy. The chapter, titled "The Role of the Judiciary," has drawn sharp criticism from the Supreme Court for highlighting issues like corruption within the judicial system, pending cases, and challenges in access to justice.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice Surya Kant has taken suo moto cognizance of the matter, warning that the court will not tolerate any attempts to defame judicial institutions. Senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, brought the issue to the bench's attention, prompting sources to reveal that Supreme Court and High Court judges are deeply perturbed, viewing the content as a direct attack on the judiciary.

The controversy stems from the textbook's explicit references to corruption at various levels of the judiciary, noting how it exacerbates barriers to justice for the poor and disadvantaged. The chapter also discusses efforts to enhance transparency and swift actions against corruption, even quoting former CJI N.V. Ramana on how governance corruption undermines public confidence.

Unlike previous editions, which focused on the structure of courts, judicial independence, and access to justice, the new version delves into systemic problems like case backlogs and judicial corruption. This shift has raised questions about whether NCERT is adapting to contemporary realities or prematurely exposing young students to complex societal issues.

Following the judiciary's backlash, NERT has removed that chapter and has apologized to the Supreme Court. Government sources however emphasized that children should be taught inspirational topics rather than potentially divisive ones, hinting that the section on judicial corruption could be removed. This response has fuelled speculation about the government's role, with critics questioning if the chapter was a deliberate move to critique the judiciary amid ongoing tensions, such as disputes over collegium appointments and allegations of nepotism.

The episode has triggered a broader debate on several fronts. Is the judiciary being overly sensitive, or "thin-skinned," to criticism, especially when corruption cases—like the recent one involving Justice V. Ramana—have surfaced without immediate suo moto action? Why single out the judiciary for corruption in textbooks while ignoring similar issues in the executive or legislature? Critics argue that such discussions belong in adult forums, where informed opinions can be formed, rather than in school curricula that might poison young minds or ingrain biases.

Additionally, why has the Supreme Court not taken suo moto cognizance of other NCERT changes, such as the removal of chapters on Mughal history or India's protest legacy, which some view as problematic erasures?

To delve deeper into these questions, insights from legal experts shed light on the nuances. A former Supreme Court Judge argued that corruption has no place in a chapter on the judiciary's role, as it is not inherent to its function. He emphasized the importance of context, noting that such topics are suitable for mature debates among adults, not Class 8 students. He highlighted how the judiciary feels singled out, pointing out that NCERT has not addressed corruption in the government or legislature, where similar allegations could provoke privilege motions.

He dismissed suggestions that the judiciary only acts to protect its image, stressing that it, like Parliament, is a pillar of democracy that must defend itself against unfounded attacks. On ongoing government-judiciary frictions, such as collegiums reforms or remarks by former Vice President Venkaiah Naidu, Lokur distinguished them as intellectual discussions among adults, not comparable to textbook content for children.

Another senior advocate focused on the chapter's framing, arguing it delegitimizes the judiciary by portraying corruption as a judiciary-specific flaw while implying the executive is actively resolving it. This, he said, creates a misleading narrative of executive purity and judicial inadequacy, ignoring systemic issues like executive discretion, bureaucratic rent-seeking, legislative capture, and opaque political funding. He insisted that accountability is essential but must be objective and comprehensive, not disproportionately targeted.

He refuted claims of judicial hypersensitivity, viewing the content as a targeted attack amid broader confrontations, such as the Justice V. Ramana case and comments from figures like former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju. On potential removal of the chapter, her criticized it as "kite flying" or avoiding controversy, arguing that education should embrace debates rather than retreat. He urged standing by positions to teach students about handling disputes, decrying the process as pedagogically flawed and focused on rote learning over critical engagement.

This controversy underscores the delicate balance between educational transparency and institutional respect, prompting calls for NCERT to revisit its approach to sensitive topics. As the Supreme Court investigates what it deems a "calculated move," the debate highlights ongoing tensions in India's democratic framework, where criticism must navigate the line between accountability and defamation.