The Supreme Court’s swift decision to take suo motu cognisance of a Class 8 NCERT textbook chapter on “corruption in the judiciary” has triggered a debate far larger than a school lesson. When Chief Justice Surya Kant declared, “I will not allow anyone on earth to taint the integrity of the institution,” it reflected a deeply felt institutional instinct—to defend credibility at all costs. But the larger question remains: can removing a paragraph from a textbook erase a perception that has already taken root in public consciousness? The now-withdrawn book by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) contained a chapter titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society.” It referred to judicial accountability mechanisms, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, and noted that complaints could be filed through the Centralised Public Grievance Redressal and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS). It also mentioned the constitutional provision of impeachment by Parliament in serious cases. On paper, nothing in that description appears scandalous. Judicial accountability, internal oversight, and constitutional checks are not subversive ideas—they are part of India’s democratic architecture. Yet, the very mention of “corruption in the judiciary” in a school textbook appears to have been perceived as an institutional slight. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal termed the development “absolutely scandalous,” though from a different angle—questioning broader textbook revisions on constitutional content. Meanwhile, Justice Joymalya Bagchi reportedly expressed concern that such deletions may run contrary to the basic structure doctrine. But the issue transcends legal technicalities. It touches upon perception—a currency far more volatile than legal doctrine. Across India, faith in the judiciary remains significantly higher than in most other institutions. Surveys over the years have shown that citizens still turn to courts as the ultimate guarantor of rights. Yet, beneath that trust lies a growing unease. Case backlogs—running into crores across all levels of the judiciary—mean justice often arrives late. And as the adage goes, justice delayed is justice denied.
The popular Bollywood refrain from Damini—“tareekh pe tareekh”—has become shorthand for procedural delay. While hyperbolic, it captures a lived frustration of litigants who spend years navigating adjournments and appeals. More recently, public discourse has been animated by reports of a controversial incident involving a sitting High Court judge in Delhi, where allegations involving large sums of cash being destroyed surfaced in media narratives as well as videos. The subsequent silence and absence of visible institutional action have only deepened scepticism. Whether these perceptions are fair or exaggerated is secondary; what matters is that they exist and are spreading. Herein lies the dilemma. Suppressing discussion does not strengthen credibility. On the contrary, transparency and reasoned engagement often do. The NCERT text did not accuse the judiciary of endemic corruption. It outlined accountability frameworks already embedded within the system. Acknowledging that oversight mechanisms exist is not an admission of guilt; it is an affirmation of constitutional maturity. India’s Constitution itself provides for judicial removal through impeachment—an extraordinary but available remedy. Complaints through CPGRAMS are a matter of public record. The Bangalore Principles are globally recognised ethical benchmarks. None of this is defamatory; it is descriptive. If anything, introducing young students to the idea that institutions are accountable may nurture respect rooted in understanding rather than blind reverence. Democracies are not sustained by denial but by constant calibration. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, occupies a unique pedestal. It has delivered landmark verdicts expanding fundamental rights, safeguarding electoral processes, and upholding constitutional morality. It has also, at times, faced criticism—whether for perceived overreach, delays, or opacity in appointments and disciplinary matters. Institutions grow stronger not by silencing uncomfortable conversations but by confronting them with clarity. A firm internal probe into controversial episodes, timely disposal of high-profile matters, greater transparency in collegium decisions, and robust communication can do far more to reinforce integrity than textbook withdrawals. The average Indian may still believe that the higher judiciary, despite its flaws, remains the last refuge of justice. That belief should not be taken for granted. It must be nurtured. Editing a chapter may remove words from a page. It does not erase lived experiences, media narratives, or systemic challenges. If anything, the episode presents an opportunity—not for defensiveness, but for introspection. The judiciary need not fear scrutiny; it should lead by example in embracing it. Trust, after all, is not commanded. It is earned—case by case, judgment by judgment, and action by action.
