In a democracy governed by the rule of law, the judiciary commands respect not merely because of its constitutional authority but because of the moral legitimacy it enjoys in the public mind. That legitimacy, however, thrives on transparency and accountability. It is precisely this delicate balance that appears to have come under scrutiny following the Supreme Court’s recent intervention in a seemingly routine academic matter. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court directed the Union government to constitute within a week a committee of domain experts to finalise the curriculum related to legal studies in NCERT textbooks. The direction came while the court was hearing a suo motu matter concerning an allegedly “offending” reference to corruption in the judiciary in a Class 8 social science textbook prepared by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). At first glance, the order may appear to be a well-intentioned effort to ensure that young students are not exposed to distorted or sensational narratives about institutions. But the question that arises is whether such judicial intervention in the framing of school curriculum is either necessary or desirable in a constitutional democracy. The irony lies in the fact that the same government had already constituted expert bodies within NCERT that developed the textbook chapter in question. The controversial content was prepared by a textbook development team chaired by historian Professor Michel Danino, with Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar as members. These are not anonymous pamphleteers but individuals with academic credentials who were part of a formal institutional process. Yet, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant not only directed the Centre to set up a fresh expert committee but also asked the government, states, Union Territories and universities to disassociate the three experts who drafted the chapter. The court did add that the experts could approach it seeking modification of the order. Still, the move raises uncomfortable questions about academic autonomy and the boundaries of judicial oversight. The court clarified that its intention was not to prevent “healthy and objective criticism” of the judiciary. On paper, that sounds reassuring. In practice, however, the message appears contradictory. If criticism of institutional functioning is legitimate—as it certainly is in any mature democracy—then why should a textbook discussion of possible judicial corruption trigger such extraordinary judicial sensitivity?
The issue becomes even more complex when viewed against the broader context of recent controversies involving the judiciary itself. Questions were raised in public discourse after videos reportedly surfaced concerning a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and alleged recovery of large amounts of cash from his residence. While the matter remains subject to institutional processes, the episode naturally generated debate in media and public forums about transparency and accountability in the judiciary. In such circumstances, should the raising of questions be seen as an attack on the institution? Or should it be viewed as part of the democratic process that ultimately strengthens institutions by subjecting them to scrutiny? After all, modern society no longer treats even sensitive subjects such as sexual education as taboo. If schoolchildren are encouraged to understand complex social issues, why should a nuanced discussion about institutional accountability be considered inappropriate for a classroom? None of this suggests that textbooks should recklessly malign constitutional bodies. Accuracy, balance and context are essential. But equally important is the principle that institutions—including the judiciary—must not appear intolerant of scrutiny. By directing the government to form yet another committee to review the curriculum, the Supreme Court may have inadvertently opened a larger debate: where does judicial protection of institutional dignity end, and where does academic freedom begin? In the final analysis, the credibility of the judiciary does not rest on shielding itself from criticism but on demonstrating that it can confront uncomfortable questions with confidence and transparency. Institutions that are secure in their integrity rarely feel rattled by honest discussion.
