UNDER-CURRENTS AFFAIR: Textbook Justice — Review Not Taken
There is something deeply ironic about a chapter on judicial accountability being silenced without due process.
The now-withdrawn Class 8 NCERT Social Science chapter on “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society” did not sensationalise. It did not accuse individuals. It did not editorialise. It cited publicly available data, constitutional provisions, and even quoted a sitting Chief Justice.
Yet it was banned.
The question is not whether the judiciary deserves respect.
The question is whether respect requires insulation from facts.
What Did the Chapter Actually Say?
It explained:
- The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct — a globally recognised ethical framework drafted in Bengaluru.
- The constitutional process of impeachment.
- The existence of complaint mechanisms.
- Data from the National Judicial Data Grid on case pendency.
- The widely acknowledged reality that delays erode public confidence.
- A July 2025 statement by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai acknowledging that instances of misconduct harm institutional trust and that transparency is the path to rebuilding it.
Which of these are false?
Which of these are defamatory?
When the head of the judiciary publicly acknowledges the existence of misconduct and calls for transparency, quoting him cannot be defamation. It is documentation.
Is Acknowledging Imperfection Equal to Undermining Integrity?
Every constitutional institution carries two obligations:
- To function independently.
- To remain accountable.
Accountability is not an attack. It is oxygen.
If Parliament’s debates can be studied, If executive decisions can be critiqued, If policies can be questioned, Then why must judicial functioning be placed beyond academic examination?
The chapter did not name judges. It did not speculate. It relied on parliamentary records and judicial data.
If data hurts credibility, the problem is not the data.
The Deeper Discomfort
Let us confront the uncomfortable truth.
Many citizens avoid litigation against the powerful — not because they lack legal merit — but because:
- Cases drag for years.
- Adjournments are frequent.
- Costs escalate.
- Emotional fatigue overwhelms.
- Outcomes feel uncertain.
This is not anti-judiciary rhetoric. It is lived experience.
Studies and court data analyses repeatedly show that adjournments, vacancies, and procedural inefficiencies contribute significantly to delay.
When citizens begin preferring “settlement outside court” even when legally correct, that signals institutional stress.
Teaching children that “Justice delayed is justice denied” is not subversion. It is constitutional literacy.
The Verma Episode and Public Perception
When allegations arise — such as in the Justice Varma controversy — and the constitutional shield of impeachment is the only mechanism of removal, public trust depends on transparency.
Immunity without visible accountability breeds suspicion. Even if allegations are unproven.
Perception matters in a constitutional democracy.
And perception improves not by suppressing discussion — but by addressing it openly.
Due Process for the Textbook — Was It Followed?
The chapter was prepared by a panel of 32 experts, including NCERT faculty and external scholars.
Yet:
- The Supreme Court acted suo motu.
- The book was withdrawn immediately.
- Copies were ordered removed.
- No formal public hearing was conducted for the authors or stakeholders.
Ironically, the very institution that emphasises “fair opportunity before action” did not extend similar opportunity to the textbook committee.
This contradiction is what disturbs thoughtful citizens.
What Happens to Young Minds?
Shielding children from institutional flaws does not build respect.
It builds fragility.
An informed generation may demand reform. An uninformed generation may either idealise unrealistically or turn cynical when reality contradicts textbooks.
The real danger is not awareness.
The real danger is disillusionment born from silence.
Is This Fear?
One cannot casually accuse the judiciary of fear.
But institutions, like individuals, protect their legitimacy.
The anxiety may not be about children. It may be about narrative control.
Yet legitimacy in a democracy does not come from control. It comes from credibility.
And credibility comes from openness.
The Larger Question
If one pillar of democracy becomes hypersensitive to scrutiny, and another pillar refrains from questioning it, and academia hesitates to examine it, where then does reform originate?
The judiciary is the guardian of constitutional morality.
But guardians too must remain open to constitutional conversation.
Final Thought
Teaching children about ethical codes, backlog statistics, impeachment procedures, and public trust is not anti-national.
It is democratic education.
If quoting a Chief Justice becomes defamation, if citing judicial data becomes conspiracy, if discussing accountability becomes sedition of thought,
then we are not protecting institutions.
We are weakening them.
Respect is strengthened by truth. Not by prohibition.
