After Reading This Article You Can Solve This UPSC Mains Model Questions:
“Suppressing criticism weakens institutions more than it protects them.” Evaluate this statement in the context of the judiciary. (10 Marks, GS-2, Polity)
Introduction
In any democracy, the judiciary must maintain a careful balance between independence and accountability. In India, the judiciary has traditionally protected its authority and institutional dignity through powers such as contempt of court. However, scholars like Max Boot, in Out of Order: Arrogance, Corruption, and Incompetence on the Bench (1998), argue that meaningful reform in the judiciary is possible only when the public is aware of its shortcomings and failures.
This issue came to the forefront in February 2026, when the Supreme Court of India intervened in a NCERT social science textbook and imposed a ban. This rare instance of the judiciary acting as a censor has raised critical questions about judicial transparency, accountability, and freedom of expression in a democratic system.
The Subject of Controversy: What the NCERT Textbook Actually Contained
The Class 8 Social Science textbook Exploring Society: India and Beyond, published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), included a chapter titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society”.
The purpose of this chapter was simple and important: to help school students understand how the Indian judiciary works, its strengths, and the real challenges it faces. The content was written in a factual, educational, and neutral way — not to attack the judiciary, but to teach young citizens about its role in democracy.
A. Key Content That Sparked the Controversy
The passages that drew the Supreme Court’s attention included the following factual and well-researched points:
- Data on Judicial Delay The chapter presented real statistics showing the huge number of pending cases in Indian courts.
- Total national pendency: over 4.76 crore cases (as per recent National Judicial Data Grid figures).
- Supreme Court pendency: over 92,000 cases at the end of 2025. It explained the famous principle: “Justice delayed is justice denied” — showing how long waits affect ordinary people’s access to justice.
- References to Judicial Corruption: The NCERT Social Science textbook openly (but factually) mentioned that corruption exists in some parts of the judiciary — both at lower courts and higher courts. It did not name individuals or make wild accusations; it simply acknowledged this as a known challenge that needs to be addressed.
- Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002): The chapter referred to these internationally accepted ethical standards for judges. These principles (adopted by many countries, including India) outline values such as integrity, impartiality, independence, propriety, equality, and competence that every judge must follow in their personal and professional life.
- Accountability Mechanisms It explained how the judiciary holds its own members accountable:
- The Supreme Court’s in-house procedure — an internal mechanism created by the Court itself to handle complaints against judges (without public trials).
- The constitutional process for removal of judges (impeachment) under Article 124 (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 217 (for High Court judges).
These points were presented as part of civic education — teaching students that no institution is perfect, and that transparency and accountability are essential in a democracy.
B. The Supreme Court’s Three-Pronged Ruling
A three-judge Bench led by the Chief Justice of India responded strongly to the chapter. The Supreme Court’s order had three main parts:
- Complete Blanket Ban: The entire textbook was prohibited — no more distribution, teaching, or use in schools. All physical copies were to be seized, and digital versions removed immediately.
- Observation on “Underlying Agenda”: The Bench stated that the content appeared to have an “underlying agenda” to undermine the institutional authority of the judiciary and demean its dignity. The Court felt the references were selective and one-sided.
- Administrative Punishment: The Court directed that the academics, experts, and NCERT officials responsible for writing or approving those passages should be “disassociated” (effectively blacklisted) from all future projects funded by the government or public universities — a serious penalty imposed without giving them any opportunity to explain or defend themselves.
Arguments in Favor of the Court’s Action
While heavily criticized, the Court’s intervention is often justified through the lens of Institutional Preservation:
- Maintaining Public Faith: The judiciary’s power is derived from public trust. If school children are taught a cynical view of the courts, the long-term legitimacy of the rule of law may be compromised.
- Ensuring “Balanced” Education: The Court argued the text was selective, ignoring transformative reforms like e-Courts, Legal Aid, and the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).
- Article 129 (Power to Punish for Contempt): The Supreme Court is a “Court of Record” with inherent powers to prevent the lowering of its authority in the eyes of the public.
- Preventing Misinformation: Proponents argue that academic freedom does not include the right to present incomplete facts that could “incite” a lack of confidence in the Constitution’s third pillar.
Key Concerns Raised by the NCERT Textbook Ban
The Supreme Court’s order banning the NCERT textbook raises serious questions about compliance with the Indian Constitution and established legal principles. The key concerns are:
Violation of Freedom of Speech and Expression: Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression, including the right to publish educational material.
Restrictions are allowed only by a law enacted by the State and only on grounds listed in Article 19(2) (e.g., contempt of court, public order).
A judicial order does not qualify as “law” under Article 19(2), as clearly held by the Supreme Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966).
Contempt Threshold Not Satisfied: Under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, criminal contempt requires material that:
Scandalises or lowers the authority of the court, or
Prejudices/interferes with judicial proceedings, or
Obstructs the administration of justice.
The textbook’s general, factual references to delays and corruption (without naming individuals or using abusive language) do not meet this high threshold. The Court did not examine whether there was malicious intent or actual harm caused.
Breach of Natural Justice and Due Process: The order directed that the authors and NCERT officials be “disassociated” (blacklisted) from future government and university projects — a severe punitive measure imposed:
Without issuing any notice
Without giving an opportunity to be heard
Without allowing any defence or explanation.
This violates core principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) and the guarantees of equality (Article 14) and life and personal liberty (Article 21).
Paradox of Judicial Review and Absence of Remedy: Constitutional courts are the final guardians of fundamental rights and exercise judicial review to strike down actions that violate Part III of the Constitution. When the courts themselves restrict free speech through bans:
Citizens are left without effective remedy, as there is no higher authority to challenge the judiciary.
This creates a dangerous situation where the protector of rights becomes the source of their infringement, undermining public confidence in the rule of law.
Implications for Indian Democracy
- Erosion of Public Trust: Suppressing discussion signals that the judiciary is above scrutiny, damaging its moral authority.
- Chilling Effect on Free Speech and Education: Authors, publishers, and teachers may avoid any critical content, weakening democratic values in young citizens.
- Threat to Separation of Powers: When one organ silences debate about itself, accountability weakens across all institutions.
- Long-term Damage: Students lose the chance to learn balanced civic education, harming the future of informed citizenship.
Global Best Practices: Transparency Through Acknowledgment, Not Suppression
In contrast to the Indian approach, advanced democracies often address judicial credibility concerns through openness:
- In Kenya, Chief Justice Willy Mutunga (2011–2013) established judicial ombudspersons, court users’ committees, and performance management systems. By acknowledging issues openly, public trust rose from 27% in 2009 to 61% in 2013 — and reforms continued thereafter.
- In the United States and United Kingdom, media, academia, and citizens freely discuss judicial performance. Courts lead transparency efforts rather than banning criticism.
India’s own judiciary has repeatedly acknowledged problems:
- In K. Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court held that High Court and Supreme Court judges are “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- It stressed that “society’s demand for honesty in a judge is exacting and absolute,” and even one dishonest judge “jeopardises the integrity of the entire judicial system.”
- Further, the Supreme Court itself has repeatedly warned about “bad apples”, delays, and the need for in-house mechanisms — yet banned a book that merely echoed these concerns.
To reform governance in both the judiciary and higher education, we must move from a culture of suppression to one of transparency and empowerment.
Way Forward: Strategic Roadmap for Institutional Reform
1. Formalizing Accountability
- Judicial Transparency: Revive the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) or pass the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill to handle complaints via a clear, statutory process.
- Performance-Based Autonomy: Link college independence to NIRF rankings and NBA accreditation. Colleges that prove quality should automatically receive academic and financial freedom.
2. Prioritizing Structural Fixes over Bans
- Filling Vacancies: Address the 30% vacancy in High Courts and faculty shortages in colleges. Solving the root cause of delay is more effective than censoring its mention in textbooks.
- Decoupling Administration: Universities should shift from “bureaucratic overseers” to academic mentors, outsourcing high-volume administrative tasks (like conducting mass exams) to specialized bodies.
3. Adopting Institutional Restraint
- The “Last Resort” Principle: Powers of Contempt or Blanket Bans should be used only when absolutely necessary, not as a tool to silence criticism.
- The Scrutiny Principle: Adhere to Lord Atkin’s view that institutions are not “cloistered virtues.” They must be robust enough to withstand public scrutiny to foster genuine growth.
4. Modernizing the Curriculum (NCERT Model)
- Problem-Solution Pedagogy: Move away from “sanitizing” challenges. Textbooks should honestly present systemic hurdles (e.g., pendency, archaic affiliation) alongside modern solutions (e.g., AI-led courts, Lok Adalats, and Autonomous Colleges).
5. Promote Media and Academic Freedom
- To resolve the tension between protecting judicial dignity and preserving democratic values, India must actively promote media freedom and academic freedom — allowing open, responsible debate about institutional strengths and shortcomings. The approach should follow the principle illustrated by Max Boot’s work and Kenya’s judicial reform success: “acknowledge, address, reform”.
Conclusion
The NCERT textbook ban is not merely about one book — it is a litmus test for Indian democracy in 2026. While protecting judicial dignity is essential, true dignity flows from transparency, not silence. As the authors Kaleeswaram Raj and Thulasi K. Raj rightly conclude, “The first step in fighting systemic problems is acknowledging them.”
A judiciary that continuously reforms itself, educates citizens about its challenges, and remains open to dissent will remain the strongest pillar of our Constitution. Only through openness and accountability can public trust be rebuilt and democracy truly strengthened.
This balanced approach — respecting the institution while safeguarding fundamental rights — is the way forward for a mature democracy.
