The NCERT Textbook Controversy: Judicial Corruption and Delays in India
Posted by विवेक on February 28, 2026
Introduction
The recent controversy surrounding the NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook has sparked widespread debate about the role of education in addressing systemic issues within India's judiciary. The textbook, titled Exploring Society: India and Beyond – Part 2, included sections on judicial corruption and case backlogs that were deemed offensive by the Supreme Court, leading to its immediate withdrawal. This article explores the content of these sections, analyzes their validity, and discusses the broader implications for transparency and accountability in the judiciary.
The Controversial Content
The disputed material was primarily in Chapter 4: "The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society." Here are the key excerpts:
Section on Corruption in the Judiciary
Judges are bound by a code of conduct that governs not only their behaviour in court, but also how they conduct themselves outside it. This code, known as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (so named because the initial drafts were prepared in Bangalore/Bengaluru over two decades ago), emphasises that judges must be seen by the public as fair and impartial. They must avoid any action, in their personal and professional lives, that could cause the public to question their integrity.
When judges fail to uphold these standards, the judiciary has an internal mechanism to maintain accountability and ensure that judges follow the values of judicial life. There is an established procedure for receiving complaints through the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS). Between 2017 and 2021, for example, over 1600 such complaints were received. In cases where the allegations are serious, the Parliament can take action and remove a judge by passing a motion of impeachment. Such a motion is considered only after a proper inquiry, during which the judge is given a fair opportunity to present their side of the case.
In a recent statement made in July 2025, the Chief Justice of India, B. R. Gavai said, '...Sadly, instances of corruption and misconduct in the judiciary had a negative impact on public confidence. “However, the path to rebuilding this trust lies in the swift, decisive and transparent action taken to address and resolve these issues... Transparency and accountability are democratic virtues,” he has been cited as saying.'
Section on Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
On account of multiple reasons, such as a lack of an adequate number of judges, complicated legal procedures, and poor infrastructure, the judicial system in our country has a massive backlog. Look at the data from the National Judicial Data Grid given below (as of March 2025):
Court Level Number of Pending Cases (approximate) Supreme Court 81,000 High Courts 62,40,000 District and other Subordinate Courts 4,70,00,000 While the number of pending cases shows part of the problem, the real issue is the long time it takes to resolve a case in court. In the High Courts, for example, nearly three-fourths of pending cases have been unresolved for over a year, and half of them have been pending for more than three years. Some cases have even remained unresolved for more than 50 years!
It is important that the people feel that their case has been heard by the court and that justice has been delivered in a timely manner. When cases are not resolved within a reasonable time, those who approach the court often feel that justice has been denied.
Analysis: What's Wrong (or Right) with This Content?
The content is largely factual, drawing from public records like the National Judicial Data Grid and official statements. The Bangalore Principles are a globally recognized code, and teaching them promotes ethical awareness. However, critics argue it could undermine public trust by highlighting flaws without sufficient context. The Supreme Court viewed it as defamatory, but quoting CJI Gavai's own words on corruption suggests the material aimed to foster discussion rather than defamation.
- Factual Accuracy: Data on backlogs and complaints is verifiable from government sources.
- Educational Value: It encourages critical thinking about institutions, aligning with modern education policies.
- Potential Issue: Lack of consultation with the Law Ministry for fact-checking.
The Supreme Court's Response and Implications
Chief Justice Surya Kant labeled the chapters a "conspiracy" to defame the judiciary, leading to a ban without hearings for stakeholders like textbook authors Michel Danino and Prof. Manjul Bhargava. This raises questions about freedom of expression and judicial overreach. Real cases, like the Justice Yashwant Varma scandal involving burnt currency notes, underscore the need for accountability. Studies on adjournments (e.g., from Daksh India) confirm they contribute significantly to delays, affecting democracy's functioning.
In a society where many avoid legal battles against the powerful, educating youth on these issues could spark reform—or disillusionment. The ban might preserve ignorance, but transparency is key to rebuilding trust.
Conclusion
The NCERT controversy highlights the tension between institutional integrity and public awareness. While the judiciary must be respected, shielding it from critique could hinder progress. As CJI Gavai noted, swift and transparent action is essential.
Sources: BBC, Hindustan Times, National Judicial Data Grid, and official judicial statements.
No comments:
Post a Comment