CJI Surya Kant Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of NCERT Textbook: Can the Judiciary Claim Immunity from Public Scrutiny?
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s strong objection to the NCERT Class 8 social science chapter referring to corruption as a challenge within the judiciary has opened a deeper constitutional debate. By taking suo motu cognisance and declaring that he would not allow anyone to taint the integrity of the institution, the CJI has made it clear that the judiciary views the issue as one affecting its legitimacy. But the larger question remains: in a constitutional democracy, can any institution object to being described as facing corruption as a structural risk, especially in civic education?
CJI Surya Kant’s Objection and the Institutional Argument
The judiciary’s concern is not difficult to understand. Unlike the executive or legislature, courts do not derive power from elections or force. Their authority rests on public confidence. If that confidence erodes, compliance with judgments weakens. From that standpoint, describing “corruption in the judiciary” in a school textbook may appear to institutionalise distrust at a formative age. The CJI’s reaction reflects an institutional instinct to protect credibility, and to prevent broad narratives from painting the institution as morally compromised.
What the NCERT Textbook Appears to Say
The NCERT textbook reportedly lists corruption alongside backlog of cases and shortage of judges as challenges faced by the judicial system. It also notes that judges are bound by a code of conduct governing their behaviour both inside and outside court. This kind of framing is closer to civic education than character assassination. Democracies routinely teach students that institutions face weaknesses and have mechanisms to address them. Discussing challenges is not the same as branding an institution corrupt, and the difference between the two should be the foundation of any assessment of whether the chapter is truly “objectionable.”
The Legal Boundary Between Criticism and Contempt
This controversy also revives the long-running tension between contempt law and free expression. India retains the doctrine of “scandalising the court” under criminal contempt, and courts have historically acted against speech that lowers their authority. At the same time, the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and depends on informed public discourse for democratic accountability. A textbook explaining institutional challenges, if framed responsibly and without sweeping claims, sits closer to academic discussion than defamation. The problem is not that critique exists. The problem is that contempt law can sometimes create an environment where criticism is treated as hostility.
Can the Judiciary Promise Zero Corruption?
No large institution anywhere can guarantee zero misconduct. The judiciary is no exception. There have been instances in the past where judges faced allegations, inquiries, or impeachment-related proceedings. Acknowledging that wrongdoing can occur does not condemn the entire institution. In fact, it strengthens the argument for transparency and institutional safeguards. If the judiciary cannot realistically assure zero corruption, then it cannot treat the mere mention of corruption as a challenge as inherently scandalous. The only reasonable debate is how that mention is framed and contextualised.
Public Trust Is Built Through Transparency, Not Silence
Public confidence is rarely built through denial. It grows when institutions demonstrate openness, accept scrutiny, and explain corrective systems. Teaching students that the judiciary faces challenges but is governed by ethical codes and constitutional checks can strengthen democratic understanding. Shielding the institution from discussion may create the impression that it is fragile rather than robust. A judiciary that can withstand criticism is a judiciary that appears confident in its own integrity.
When Sensitivity Becomes Counterproductive
The risk of an overly strong reaction is that it can unintentionally validate the very suspicion it seeks to suppress. When constitutional authorities respond with visible anger to a textbook line, the public naturally asks what is being protected: dignity or immunity. The judiciary does not need to claim perfection to command respect. It needs to show that it can face hard conversations without treating them as personal attacks on the institution.
Conclusion
The judiciary deserves protection from reckless, defamatory attacks. But it does not require insulation from civic discussion. Its legitimacy flows from constitutional principles, reasoned judgments, and visible accountability. If corruption is described as a challenge rather than a defining reality, allowing that discussion in school education may strengthen, not weaken, democratic trust. The judiciary’s dignity is not preserved by silence. It is preserved by the confidence to face scrutiny and still stand tall.
