Courting Mistrust with the NCERT Book Ban, When the Judiciary Silences Criticism
In a rare moment of unity, opposing counsels who are constantly at loggerheads in the Supreme Court found themselves aligned late last month. The suo motu case taken up by the Court regarding a school textbook chapter brought them together. Later, the government too agreed with them. In that rare moment, they collectively chastised the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) for a section in a chapter titled “The Role of Judiciary in our Society” in a Class VIII social science textbook. One of the portions dealt with corruption in the judiciary, mentioned the code of conduct that governs judges, the accountability mechanisms, and went on to say that, despite these systems, corruption did exist and that those who are most affected are the marginalised. It ended by saying, “Hence, efforts are constantly being made at the state and Union levels to build faith and increase transparency in the judicial system, including through the use of technology, and to take swift and decisive action against instances of corruption wherever they may arise.”
A box highlighted a quote by B.R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India, that corruption in the judiciary leads to the erosion of public confidence in the system, and there is a need for quick and transparent action and corrective measures. This entire section is a description of a complex reality. Yet, the Court said it had been committed to maintaining the country’s independence and integrity. The Court noted that the chapter did not say enough about the history of the courts, their contribution to upholding the democratic fabric of India, the many reformative measures taken by them to ensure that justice was served to every citizen, and the actions the judicial system has taken against corruption. The Court could have asked that these aspects of our constitutional history and development be included in the textbook. Instead, it banned the book, asked for names of the people who had prepared the chapter, minutes of all meetings, and later ordered that those involved in the preparation of this chapter should not be included in any curriculum creation for the Union government, state governments, Union territories, universities, and public institutions receiving government funds. The authors have not even been given a hearing—something that would be a basic requirement for fairness.
The Court was also worried about the age of readers: “Young students in their formative years are only beginning to navigate the nuances of public life and the constitutional architecture that sustains it. It is fundamentally improper to expose them to a biased narrative that may engender permanent misconceptions at an age when they lack the perspicacity to appreciate the manifold and onerous responsibilities that are discharged by the judiciary on a day-to-day basis.” This age-related stance is tricky. Conservatives use similar arguments of “appropriateness” to argue against sex education in schools. They claim students are not old enough to understand sexuality and, consequently, the culture of not discussing such things in a classroom is normalised, and the issue is brushed under the carpet. The adverse effects of this unawareness are well studied and documented. The same logic applied to the judiciary—that students are too young to understand the reality of corruption—is a form of paternalism that underestimates the capacity of young minds to engage with complexity.
Treating a textbook as the only source of information for a student is myopic. A textbook is only a learning tool. What we should worry about is educating the educator. We live in the era of the internet. Learning does not start or stop in the classroom. Students read and view videos about cases, judgments, and corruption on digital platforms. What is written in a textbook is not going to make this issue go away or stop students from being aware of it. In fact, by banning the textbook, the Court has ensured that students will now seek out information from less reliable sources, where nuance is absent and the complexity of the issue is flattened into sensationalism.
We should not underestimate students; they observe and recognise our contradictions. When a textbook states such a reality frontally, trust is established, and students engage robustly with questions about change and the measures the courts have taken. Including these conversations in the class environment will also help dispel the falsities perpetrated on social media. A student who reads in a textbook that corruption exists but that the judiciary has systems in place to address it is better equipped to evaluate the claims they encounter online than a student who is taught that the judiciary is beyond criticism.
In this particular case, the fact that the person who heads the entire judicial architecture was open about the existence of corruption was a welcome change. This is why the Court wants the Constitution of India to be used to protect the rights of citizens, young students need to develop a personal bond with our judiciary, and that only happens when we are honest about its weaknesses. A bond built on denial is not a bond at all; it is a delusion.
While the Court was hyper-sensitive about how it was portrayed, it did not seem to worry that every mythological example for justice given in that same chapter came from the Mahabharata. In its order, the Court mentioned the Basic Structure Doctrine in which our secularity is enshrined. The Indian sensibility of secularism is in embracing a multi-faith society and ensuring equality between them. Isn’t it important that a chapter on the judiciary, written for “impressionable” Class VIII students, provide examples of good jurisprudence from the stories and myths of multiple religions? The absence of such examples is not a cause for judicial intervention, but it is a telling omission.
In its order, the Court said, “…we remain of the firm conviction that dissent, deliberation and rigorous discourse constitute the very vitality of a living democracy and serve as essential instruments of institutional accountability.” But its reaction will have a chilling effect. From now on, textbook writers will not dare criticise the courts. The Court has, by default, stifled critical thinking, which is what we must inculcate in young people. If the highest court in the land responds to mild criticism by banning books and blacklisting authors, what message does that send to every other institution? What message does it send to the students who are supposed to be learning about the Constitution?
The apex court being upset about the way it is portrayed and demanding that corrections be made is fair and part of the process. The judiciary, like any institution, has a legitimate interest in how it is represented in educational materials. But for it to attribute motives, order a blanket ban, and ostracise the authors sends the wrong message. The authors were not given a hearing. The book was not revised; it was banned. The authors were not asked to explain; they were blacklisted. This is not how a mature institution responds to criticism. This is how an insecure institution responds.
The Supreme Court is our last refuge. It is the institution to which we turn when all other avenues have failed. It is the guardian of the Constitution, the protector of fundamental rights. If it is to behave like the State and censure us, we will have nowhere to go. The Court’s power rests not just on the Constitution but on the public trust that it has earned over seven decades. That trust is built on the perception that the Court is open to criticism, that it can hear dissent, that it can distinguish between a threat to its authority and a legitimate expression of concern. When the Court bans a textbook for mentioning corruption, it does not protect its authority; it erodes the very trust that is its foundation.
The NCERT chapter was not a model of perfect pedagogy. It could have included more about the judiciary’s historical contributions, its reformative measures, its role in upholding democracy. The Court could have asked for those additions. Instead, it chose to ban. The textbook will be revised, the authors will be punished, and the next set of textbook writers will think twice before mentioning judicial corruption. The Court will have its silence. But silence is not respect. It is the absence of trust. And a democracy without trust is a democracy in name only.
Questions and Answers
Q1: What was the content of the NCERT textbook chapter that led to the Supreme Court’s intervention?
A1: The chapter, titled “The Role of Judiciary in our Society,” discussed corruption in the judiciary, mentioned the code of conduct for judges, accountability mechanisms, and noted that despite these systems, corruption does exist, particularly affecting the marginalised. It included a quote from former CJI B.R. Gavai about corruption eroding public confidence and the need for corrective measures.
Q2: What action did the Supreme Court take against the NCERT and the authors of the chapter?
A2: The Court banned the book, demanded the names of those who prepared the chapter and minutes of all meetings, and ordered that those involved in preparing the chapter be barred from any curriculum creation for the Union government, state governments, universities, and public institutions receiving government funds. The authors were not given a hearing.
Q3: How does the article critique the Court’s argument that students are too young to be exposed to such content?
A3: The article notes that conservatives use similar “age-appropriateness” arguments to oppose sex education, with well-documented adverse effects. It argues that students in the internet age are already exposed to such information from less reliable sources, and that a textbook that honestly addresses a complex reality builds trust and equips students to evaluate what they encounter online.
Q4: What does the article say about the Court’s use of examples from the Mahabharata in the chapter?
A4: The article notes that every mythological example for justice in the chapter came from the Mahabharata, and the Court did not object to the lack of examples from other religions. Given that the Court invoked the Basic Structure Doctrine and secularism in its order, the article questions why it was not concerned about providing examples from multiple faiths for “impressionable” students.
Q5: What chilling effect does the article predict the Court’s actions will have?
A5: The article predicts that from now on, textbook writers will not dare criticise the courts. By banning the book, blacklisting authors without a hearing, and attributing motives, the Court has stifled critical thinking. The article argues that the Court’s power rests on public trust, and when it censures legitimate criticism, it erodes that trust. A democracy without trust is a democracy in name only.
