Judiciary not averse to criticism but it must come through appropriate forum: Supreme Court in NCERT textbook case

The Supreme Court recently observed that the judiciary is not averse to criticism, but made it clear that such criticism must be voiced through an appropriate forum and not find its way into school curriculum without verification.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observation while disposing of its suo motu case concerning a chapter titled The Role of the Judiciary in our Society in the NCERT Grade 8 Social Science textbook called Exploring Society: India and Beyond.

"The Judiciary, as an institution, is not, and cannot be, averse to criticism. Fair, informed and constructive critique of judicial functioning is a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy, contributing to institutional accountability and self-correction. What is required, however, is that such criticism be voiced through the appropriate forum and in a fair, rational mechanism, and not find its way, without verification, into a school curriculum meant for impressionable minds," the Court said in its order.

The Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the issue in February this year after a newspaper report flagged the chapter's sub-topic 'Corruption in the Judiciary'. Back then, it had observed that the chapter undermined the institution's authority and called it a "deep-rooted conspiracy" to defame the judiciary.

It had also directed the seizure and withdrawal of all copies of the book from circulation and imposed a ban on any further publication or digital dissemination of the book.

The Court further issued notice under the Contempt of Courts Act to the Department of School Education and to NCERT Director Dr Dinesh Prasad Saklani, asking them to show cause why suitable action should not be initiated against them or those who are behind the offending chapters.

The focus then turned to three academicians who drafted the chapter in focus, namely Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar. The Court strongly criticised them and directed the Central government, States, universities and educational institutions to disassociate themselves from the three experts. This order was later recalled.

Later in March, the Court directed the Central government to form an expert committee of domain experts to rework the chapter.

The Court eventually closed the case on September 1. In its order, which was made available only recently, the Bench stated,

"Dissent, deliberation and rigorous discourse were recognised as the vital components of a living democracy. The exercise of jurisdiction was occasioned not by an aversion to scrutiny, but by the need to safeguard the pedagogical integrity of material meant for young and impressionable minds."

On going through the revised chapter, the Court stated,

"We find that the revised text presents an objective, factually accurate and balanced account of the Judiciary, setting out its constitutional role and the safeguards of independence and accountability that inhere in it, without either glorifying or unfairly disparaging the institution."

The Court noted that the NCERT Director the School Education and Literacy Department Secretary Sanjay Kumar had tendered unconditional apologies and that the government had recalled 82,440 copies of the textbook already in circulation.

It thus withdrew the show cause notices, while directing that the authorities remain bound by their assurances on vetting educational material relating to public institutions in future editions.

The Court also placed on record its appreciation for expert committee members former Supreme Court Justice Indu Malhotra, former Attorney General KK Venugopal and Prof Prakash Singh, as well as the reconstituted National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC), led by MC Pant and Prof Manjul Bhargava, for completing the exercise within a limited timeframe.

[Read Order]