The Selective Gaze, When the Judiciary Takes Offence and Textbooks Become Battlegrounds
In a vibrant democracy, the relationship between the three pillars of the state—the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary—is meant to be one of checks and balances, a dynamic equilibrium that ensures no single institution becomes too powerful. It is a relationship built on mutual respect, but also on a shared understanding that each pillar is subject to scrutiny and criticism. However, a recent incident involving the Supreme Court of India and a Class 8 social science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has raised uncomfortable questions about the boundaries of this scrutiny. It suggests a growing trend where the judiciary appears quick to take offence when it perceives itself under attack, even as far more egregious and ideologically motivated distortions within the same textbook are allowed to pass without comment. This selective outrage threatens not only the freedom of academic discourse but also the delicate institutional balance that underpins Indian democracy.
The controversy erupted when a Bench of the Supreme Court took suo motu (on its own) cognizance of certain passages in an NCERT textbook that were critical of the judiciary. The passages in question discussed the reality of judicial corruption and the massive pendency of cases, stating that “people do experience corruption at various levels of the judiciary” and went on to describe the existing complaints and redress mechanisms. The Court’s reaction was swift and severe. It characterized these references not as legitimate academic criticism, but as a “deep-seated conspiracy” to tarnish the image of the judiciary. In a dramatic display of institutional ego, the Bench declared that it would not allow “anyone on earth” to undermine the integrity of the Supreme Court.
The government’s response was even more troubling. Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan immediately expressed remorse and promised that action would be taken against the officials responsible for inserting these “objectionable” passages. This reaction is a classic example of “executive arbitrariness prompted by judicial overreach.” Instead of defending the autonomy of the educational body and the academic freedom of its textbook writers, the executive bent over backwards to appease an offended judiciary, signaling that any criticism of the state, no matter how factual, will be met with punitive action.
To be fair to the Court, its sensitivity is not entirely without context. Textbooks are not ordinary books. They are officially sanctioned, authoritative accounts presented to impressionable young minds. The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the material is accurate and age-appropriate. Furthermore, the judiciary has been under sustained attack from various quarters in recent years. Right-wing commentators and even government advisers have increasingly targeted the Court for judgments they deem “anti-national” or obstacles to development. An adviser to the Prime Minister recently publicly labeled the judiciary as the single biggest impediment to India’s progress. In this atmosphere of constant sniping, the Court may have seen the textbook passages as another front in a coordinated campaign to intimidate and delegitimize it. The poorly phrased, “broad-brushing” nature of some sentences, which read more like social media assertions than carefully constructed academic prose, likely added to this perception.
However, the Court’s reaction, while understandable, is deeply problematic. The instances of judicial corruption and case pendency it took such umbrage at are not imaginary. They are real, documented, and often discussed problems within the legal system itself. Senior lawyers, retired judges, and legal scholars have frequently lamented the slowing wheels of justice and the need for greater accountability. To label the mere mention of these widely acknowledged facts in a school textbook as a “conspiracy” is to deny reality. It is to place the institution above the very people it is meant to serve. Censorship is never a corrective measure. If the passages were poorly worded or lacked nuance, the solution was to engage with NCERT to improve them, not to threaten punishment and frame the discussion as an attack on the nation’s sovereignty.
The far more troubling aspect of this entire episode, however, is the selective nature of the judiciary’s outrage. If the Court were truly concerned about the misuse of textbooks to push specific narratives, it would have found ample material for concern throughout the very same NCERT book. The textbook in question, a Class 8 social science text, is riddled with problematic passages that do not pertain to the judiciary. These passages, reflecting the ideological lens of the current dispensation, are allowed to pass without any judicial comment or concern. The chapter on elections, for instance, features a picture of currency notes apparently found in the car of a candidate, a clear attempt to spark critical awareness about the role of money power in politics. The Court did not object to that.
More significantly, the history chapters present a deeply skewed and communal interpretation of India’s past. They uncritically valorize medieval Hindu kingdoms, portraying their struggles to retain power as heroic and righteous resistances to “Muslim rule.” Wars for plunder and territorial expansion have been a constant feature of human history across all civilizations and religions. They did not begin with the arrival of Muslim invaders, and to frame them in such a simplistic, communal binary is a distortion of history. The chapters on the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire briefly mention Akbar’s tolerance and Babur’s intellectual curiosity, but the overall narrative remains overwhelmingly negative, focusing on conquest and destruction while ignoring the profound administrative, cultural, and economic contributions of these long and complex periods. The chapter that contrasts penury under British rule with the supposed wealth of the Mughal era is presented without the necessary nuance or balance, creating a simplistic and misleading picture.
The problem, therefore, is not that the textbook selectively targets the judiciary. The problem is that the judiciary selectively targets certain portions while remaining completely silent on far more pervasive and insidious distortions elsewhere. This selective gaze reveals a dangerous hierarchy of values. An institution’s ego is deemed more worthy of protection than the historical truth. A perceived slight against the judges is met with the full force of the Court’s authority, while the systematic rewriting of history to fit a majoritarian narrative is ignored. This sends a chilling message to authors, publishers, and educators: you can criticize anyone, you can distort any historical fact, as long as you do not criticize us.
This incident is a microcosm of a much larger struggle for the soul of India’s democratic institutions. On one side is an executive that is actively engaged in reshaping educational content to serve an ideological agenda, rewriting history to valorize one community and demonize another. On the other side is a judiciary that, when its own prestige is questioned, is quick to react with the heavy hand of the law, blurring the lines between defending its dignity and suppressing legitimate criticism. Caught in the middle is the citizen’s right to knowledge, the academic’s freedom to teach, and the student’s right to a balanced, accurate, and nuanced education.
The path forward requires a reset. The judiciary must develop a thicker skin. It must recognize that in a democracy, all institutions, including itself, are legitimate subjects of public discourse and criticism. Its integrity is not so fragile that it needs to be protected by censoring school books. Responding to factual criticism with threats and accusations of conspiracy is the hallmark of an insecure institution, not a confident one. At the same time, the executive must resist the temptation to use the judiciary’s sensitivity as an excuse to further its own agenda of educational censorship. The solution to poorly written textbooks is open debate, expert review, and transparent revision, not punitive action against officials. The children of India deserve textbooks that teach them to think critically, not textbooks that teach them which institutions to fear and which historical narratives to accept without question. The selective outrage on display in this case serves no one but those who wish to see our democratic institutions weakened by their own inability to tolerate a little honest, even if imperfectly phrased, criticism.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What was the specific incident that sparked the controversy between the Supreme Court and the NCERT textbook?
A1: The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of passages in a Class 8 NCERT social science textbook that discussed judicial corruption and the pendency of cases. The textbook stated that “people do experience corruption at various levels of the judiciary.” The Court viewed these references not as academic criticism, but as a “deep-seated conspiracy” to tarnish the judiciary’s image and declared it would not allow anyone to do so.
Q2: What was problematic about the government’s response to the Court’s action?
A2: The government’s response, led by Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, was to immediately express remorse and promise action against the officials responsible for the passages. The article terms this “executive arbitrariness prompted by judicial overreach,” arguing that instead of defending the academic autonomy of NCERT, the executive bowed to judicial pressure, setting a dangerous precedent where any criticism of the state could lead to punitive action.
Q3: Does the article suggest the judiciary’s sensitivity is entirely without context?
A3: No. The article acknowledges the context, noting that the judiciary has been under sustained attack from right-wing commentators and even government advisers who have labeled it an obstacle to development. Furthermore, textbooks are official documents, and the poorly phrased, “broad-brushing” nature of the sentences may have contributed to the Court’s perception of a coordinated attack. However, it argues that this context does not justify censorship.
Q4: What is meant by the “selective gaze” of the judiciary in this case?
A4: “Selective gaze” refers to the fact that the judiciary objected to the passages critical of itself while completely ignoring far more problematic and ideologically driven content elsewhere in the same textbook. The article points to history chapters that uncritically valorize Hindu kingdoms, present a negative portrayal of Muslim rule, and lack historical balance. This shows the Court is quick to defend its own honor but silent on other distortions.
Q5: According to the article, what is the larger danger of this incident for Indian democracy?
A5: The larger danger is the chilling effect it has on free discourse and the erosion of institutional balance. It sends a message that the judiciary’s ego is more important than historical truth, and that the executive will use judicial sensitivity to push its own censorship agenda. This threatens academic freedom, the right to a balanced education, and the democratic principle that all institutions are subject to legitimate public scrutiny and criticism.
