Back
CJI Takes Notice of Defamatory NCERT Chapter
In a stern rebuke that reverberated through legal corridors, the
, headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, on
took
cognizance
of controversial content in a new Class 8 NCERT Social Science textbook. The chapter, part of a discussion on
"The role of the judiciary in our society,"
explicitly alleges
"corruption in the judiciary"
and highlights systemic challenges like case backlogs, judge shortages, procedural complexities, and poor infrastructure. CJI Kant vowed,
"I will not allow anybody to defame the institution. Law will take its course,"
signaling potential legal repercussions for the
. Justices and senior advocates expressed outrage, framing the inclusion as a direct assault on constitutional pillars, perturbing the entire bar and bench.
This development underscores the judiciary's vigilance in safeguarding its institutional sanctity amid ongoing debates on transparency and reforms.
Background on the Controversy
The , an autonomous body under the , is responsible for designing and publishing textbooks primarily for schools. Established in , NCERT plays a pivotal role in shaping India's school curriculum, especially following the National Education Policy (NEP) , which emphasized rationalization of content to reduce curriculum load.
The
, a newly released Class 8 Social Science volume, includes a dedicated section on judicial corruption within its chapter on the judiciary's societal role. Sources indicate it outlines
"various forms of judicial corruption"
alongside acknowledged challenges: over 5 crore pending cases nationwide (as per
data as of
), insufficient judicial strength (mere 21 judges per million population per
reports), labyrinthine procedures, and infrastructural deficits in lower courts.
While these issues are well-documented—India's judiciary grapples with a pendency crisis exacerbated post-COVID—the framing as outright "corruption" has ignited fury.
flagged it during proceedings, stating,
"NCERT is teaching class 8 students about judicial corruption. This is a matter of grave concern. We are here for the bar."
This brought the matter to the Supreme Court's notice, prompting immediate judicial intervention.
Supreme Court's Intervention
cognizance—Latin for "on its own motion"—is a powerful tool under
, allowing the Court to initiate proceedings without a formal petition to protect fundamental rights or public interest. CJI Surya Kant, as the head of the institution, affirmed the Court's action:
"Bar and bench all are perturbed. All High Court judges are perturbed. I will take up the matter
."
The Chief Justice described the chapter's inclusion as a
"calculated move"
, adding,
"As head of the institution, I have done my duty and I have taken cognizance. I won’t say much."
This rare public admonition from the Bench highlights the perceived gravity, especially targeting impressionable Class 8 students (aged 13-14), who form future citizens and potential legal professionals.
Key Statements from the Bench and Bar
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of the Bench, elevated the discourse by invoking constitutional fundamentals:
"The book seems to go against the basic structure itself,"
labeling it
"an attack on the
."
The
, propounded in the landmark 1973 case
, safeguards core features like
, independence, and secularism from parliamentary amendment.
echoed concerns over
"selectivity"
, noting,
"The selectivity my lord. The selectivity.. it is there in other areas also but judicial corruption!"
This points to perceived bias in highlighting judiciary-specific flaws without balanced portrayal of other institutions.
The collective perturbation—spanning Supreme Court, , bar associations—signals unified institutional dismay, rare in India's fractious legal landscape.
Invocation of
Justice Bagchi's reference to the "basic structure" is legally profound. Originating from Kesavananda Bharati , it has been reaffirmed in cases like Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) and L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), which entrenched and independence as unamendable. Educational content undermining public faith in judiciary could indirectly erode this structure by fostering cynicism among youth.
While the textbook addresses real issues—e.g., 4.4 crore cases pending in district courts alone (NJDG
)—its tone risks crossing into unsubstantiated allegation, potentially violating
's restrictions on speech prejudicial to
"friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality,"
or inciting contempt under the
(
:
).
Legal Analysis and Implications
This episode pits freedom of expression ( ) against institutional protection . Courts have historically balanced critique with decorum: E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar (1970) held good-faith criticism immune from contempt, but Indirect Tax Practitioners Assn. v. R.K. Jain (2010) cautioned against generalized attacks eroding public confidence.
NCERT's autonomy doesn't shield it from judicial scrutiny, especially as a state instrumentality. Precedents like Arundhati Roy contempt case (2002) for anti-judiciary remarks illustrate boundaries. Here, the Court may direct: - Immediate withdrawal/amendment of the chapter. - Guidelines for curriculum on public institutions. - Inquiry into approval processes (post-NEP rationalization controversially dropped topics like Gujarat riots).
Contempt proceedings seem unlikely initially, given educational intent, but writs under for rights violation ( 's fair trial via public faith) are plausible. Freedom of speech in education ( Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala , 1986) protects neutral content, but defamatory framing invites review.
Broader Context: Judicial Challenges and Reforms
Ironically, the textbook spotlights genuine woes: India's judge-to-population ratio lags UN standards (50 per million recommended); pendency rose 25% in five years (India Justice Report 2022). Reforms like e-Courts, NJAC (struck down 2015 for independence breach), and mediation push continue.
Yet, portraying as "corruption" without evidence (e.g., no Vigilance reports cited) amplifies perceptions—Transparency International notes judicial corruption risks, but empirical data (e.g., 70% public trust per surveys) contradicts blanket claims. This could hinder reforms by polarizing discourse.
Relatedly, courts have -ed on media (Sudhir Chaudhary fake news, 2017) and education (hijab row, 2022), establishing vigilance over narratives shaping society.
Potential Outcomes and Impacts on Legal Practice
Anticipated: SC listing for hearing, possible impleading NCERT/MoE; orders mirroring MC Mehta cases for compliance. Impacts: - Curriculum : Stricter vetting for judiciary portrayals; NEP's critical thinking vs. institutional deference. - Legal Community : Bolsters morale amid burnout; bar may push PILs on pendency. - Practice : Heightened sensitivity in advising on public critiques; opportunities in education law. - Justice System : Reframes corruption narrative toward structural fixes (e.g., All India Judicial Service).
For legal professionals, this affirms judiciary's self-preservation role, potentially influencing lobbying for infrastructure via NJDG integrations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's swift
action against NCERT's textbook reaffirms its role as sentinel of constitutional ethos. While acknowledging systemic flaws is vital for reform, defamatory pedagogy imperils public trust essential for justice delivery. As CJI Kant asserts,
"law will take its course,"
this saga may catalyze balanced curricula, fortifying rather than undermining the third pillar of democracy. Legal eagles will watch closely for precedents balancing candor with dignity in India's evolving jurisprudence.
