Supreme Court Raises Concern Over Ncert Class 8 Book Mentioning “Corruption In Judiciary”
In a significant development, the Supreme Court witnessed strong remarks from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who expressed serious concern over references to “corruption in the judiciary” in a newly released Class 8 Social Science textbook by National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).
The Chief Justice made it clear that he would not permit any attempt to defame or denigrate the judiciary as an institution and indicated that appropriate action may follow if required.
What Does The New Ncert Book Say?
The updated Social Science textbook for Class 8 introduces a chapter titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society.” Unlike earlier editions, the new version discusses certain systemic challenges faced by the Indian judicial system.
Issues Mentioned In The Textbook
- “Corruption at various levels of the judiciary”
- “Massive backlog of cases”
- Shortage of judges
- Complex legal procedures
- Inadequate infrastructure
Pending Cases Data Cited
The book also provides approximate data on pending cases:
| Court | Number of Pending Cases |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court | 81,000 cases |
| High Courts | 62,40,000 cases |
| District & Subordinate Courts | 4,70,00,000 cases |
These figures were cited to illustrate the burden on the judicial system.
Contrast With The Previous Textbook
The earlier edition of the Class 8 Social Science textbook focused primarily on:
- The structure of the Indian judiciary
- The concept of an independent judiciary
- Access to justice
- The role of courts in safeguarding rights
While it did acknowledge delays in the justice system, it used the widely known phrase “Justice delayed is justice denied” to describe prolonged case pendency. However, it did not explicitly mention “corruption” as a systemic challenge.
Why The Supreme Court Objected
Chief Justice Surya Kant reportedly took strong exception to the inclusion of the phrase “corruption in judiciary,” stating that such generalised remarks could harm public confidence in the institution.
The judiciary functions on the foundation of public trust. Any perception of institutional corruption, especially when presented in a school textbook for young students, may influence how future generations view the justice delivery system.
The CJI emphasized that while constructive criticism is part of democracy, blanket statements that appear to tarnish the institution cannot be permitted without careful scrutiny.
Balancing Transparency And Institutional Integrity
The issue has sparked wider debate. On one hand, transparency about systemic challenges—such as backlog and infrastructure constraints—can promote awareness and reform. On the other hand, describing corruption in broad terms without contextual explanation may risk oversimplification.
India’s judicial system, from the Supreme Court of India to subordinate courts, handles millions of cases annually. Pendency remains a serious concern, and reforms such as digital courts, e-filing, and increased judicial appointments are ongoing efforts to address delays.
However, institutional credibility remains paramount. The Supreme Court’s reaction signals its intention to protect the dignity of the judiciary while continuing internal reforms where necessary.
Larger Constitutional Perspective
The judiciary is one of the three pillars of democracy, alongside the legislature and executive. Its independence is protected by the Constitution to ensure fairness, impartiality, and protection of fundamental rights.
Public discourse about its challenges must therefore strike a delicate balance:
- Encourage reform
- Maintain accountability
- Preserve institutional trust
The remarks by the Chief Justice highlight this delicate equilibrium between critical evaluation and safeguarding constitutional institutions.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the new NCERT Class 8 textbook reflects a broader national conversation about transparency, accountability, and the reputation of democratic institutions.
As the matter develops, it may lead to a review of how sensitive institutional challenges are presented in educational materials. What remains clear is that the Supreme Court has taken a firm stance in defending the dignity of the judiciary while the country continues to grapple with issues such as case pendency and systemic reform.
In a democracy, debate is natural—but so is the responsibility to protect institutions that uphold the rule of law.
