Is the Indian Judiciary Above Criticism? The NCERT Textbook Row
Is the Indian Judiciary Above Criticism – When the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) released its new Class 8 Social Science textbook earlier this month, a small section on “corruption in the judiciary” became one of the most controversial lines in Indian education. Within 48 hours the book was pulled from sale and circulation, following a sharp rebuke from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who made it clear that the Supreme Court would not allow “anybody to defame the institution.”
The textbook had included a candid account of challenges facing the Indian judiciary — from corruption at various levels to massive case backlogs stemming from judge shortages and procedural constraints. It even cited data on the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS), which logged over 1,600 complaints against judicial officers between 2017 and 2021.
The CJI’s sharply worded criticism — that such content could “defame” the institution — sparked an intense debate among educators, legal scholars, civil society voices and the public: Is there corruption in the Indian judiciary, and if so, why is its discussion so contested?
Judicial Integrity: Myth or Reality?
The Indian judiciary, from the Supreme Court down to district courts, is widely respected as a bulwark of constitutional democracy. Its independence from the executive and legislature is enshrined in the Constitution. Yet, no institution is immune to human fallibility, and there have been documented allegations and controversies that raise serious questions about integrity and accountability.
In 2025, the discovery of large sums of burnt and partially burnt cash at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court triggered public outcry and a probe panel report suggesting misconduct serious enough to recommend removal, a rare and politically sensitive step for a sitting judge.
There have been other past cases that drew headlines and disciplinary action, from the suspension of a judge in Ludhiana following inspections revealing ethical lapses to historic cases of former judges facing charges of land grabbing, corruption and abuse of office.
Moreover, public comments from judiciary leaders themselves acknowledge the problem: former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai openly noted that instances of corruption and misconduct can denude public faith and acknowledged the seriousness of even isolated events in affecting confidence in the system.
These instances do not suggest that the judiciary as a whole is corrupt, but they dispel the notion that corruption – especially in lower courts and among certain judicial officers -is an imaginary or trivial matter.
Pendency and Access to Justice
Even apart from corruption allegations, the sheer backlog of cases in Indian courts — highlighted in the NCERT draft — feeds perceptions of systemic dysfunction. Estimates point to millions of pending cases, with long delays undermining access to timely justice. This reality is not the result of malice but of structural issues including inadequate judge strength, procedural complexity and resource constraints.
Long delays and erratic judicial performance can also erode public trust to the point where citizens perceive corruption even where none may legally be proven. The consequence is a credibility gap that is distinct from provable corruption but just as damaging to the institution’s reputation.
Accountability Mechanisms Exist — But Are They Effective?
Critics of the NCERT textbook’s treatment argued that the book failed to present the judiciary’s own accountability mechanisms, such as in-house complaint systems, codes of conduct like the Bangalore Principles, and constitutional provisions for impeachment of judges by Parliament in cases of serious misconduct.
Indeed, India’s system allows for complaint redress and disciplinary action, and in most cases, alleged impropriety is investigated internally by judicial bodies or through formal inquiry procedures – mechanisms that the textbook either underplayed or did not fully contextualise.
Why the Debate Is So Heated
The legal fraternity’s strong reaction reveals a deeper tension at the heart of democratic institutions: how do we balance respect for the judiciary’s independence with the need for openness about its failings?
For many, elite unease over even discussing corruption indicates a reluctance to accept that judges, like any humans, are susceptible to error or moral lapses. For others, publicising isolated incidents without robust context may blur the line between isolated misconduct and systemic corruption.
The textbook row also underscores how public discourse shapes institutional trust. Shutting down discussion might protect reputations in the short term, but ignoring systemic challenges from backlogs to complaint mechanisms — risks leaving genuine concerns unaddressed.
The Indian judiciary is not monolithically corrupt — it is large, heterogeneous and overwhelmingly populated by officers who seek to uphold the rule of law. Yet, instances of misconduct, case backlogs and accountability gaps are real enough to warrant discussion.
An open democracy thrives on rigorous, fact-based critique of all institutions — including the judiciary without automatically confusing criticism with defamation. The NCERT controversy should not be about suppressing difficult conversations, but about teaching young citizens to analyse, question and understand how institutions maintain integrity while remaining accountable to the people they serve.
Also Read: https: https://newshashtag.com/%e2%82%b9590-crore-fraud-rekindles-old-scars-in-india/
Prabha Gupta is a veteran journalist and civic thinker dedicated to the constitutional ideals of dignity and institutional ethics. With over thirty years of experience in public communication, her work serves as a bridge between India’s civil society and its democratic institutions. She is a prominent voice on the evolution of Indian citizenship, advocating for a national discourse rooted in integrity and the empowerment of the common citizen
