Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that the Judiciary, as a constitutional institution, is not beyond criticism. Fair, informed and constructive criticism of judicial functioning is an essential component of a vibrant constitutional democracy because it promotes institutional accountability, transparency and self-correction.

At the same time, the Court emphasised that criticism of the Judiciary must be responsible, factually supported and expressed through an appropriate forum and rational mechanism. Unverified or unsupported allegations, particularly when incorporated into educational material intended for schoolchildren, cannot be treated as responsible criticism.

The observations were made by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana while disposing of suo motu proceedings concerning an NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook chapter dealing with “Corruption in the Judiciary”.

 

Background of the Case

The proceedings arose in relation to the contents of a Class 8 Social Science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). The concerned chapter dealt with the role and functioning of the Judiciary and included material concerning “Corruption in the Judiciary”.

The issue raised concerns about whether the material presented an objectively balanced account of the Judiciary or whether it contained assertions that were insufficiently verified and potentially capable of creating an inaccurate impression among young students.

Considering the nature of the material and its intended audience, the Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings to examine the issue and ensure that educational content concerning constitutional institutions was prepared and vetted appropriately.

 

Supreme Court: Judiciary Is Open to Responsible Criticism

One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is the Court’s recognition that judicial institutions cannot claim immunity from legitimate criticism.

The Court observed that fair, informed and constructive criticism of judicial functioning is not only permissible but also necessary in a constitutional democracy. Such criticism can contribute to institutional accountability and encourage self-correction.

However, the Court drew an important distinction between responsible criticism and uninformed assertion.

The Court stated:

“The Judiciary, as an institution, is not, and cannot be, averse to criticism.”

The Court further explained that criticism should be expressed through an appropriate forum and supported by a fair and rational mechanism. The concern was therefore not with criticism itself, but with the manner, forum and evidentiary basis of such criticism.

 

Importance of Responsible Discourse

The Supreme Court’s observations highlight the importance of responsible public discourse concerning constitutional institutions.

In a democratic system, criticism performs an important checking function. Judicial decisions, administrative actions and institutional functioning may legitimately be scrutinised by citizens, academics, lawyers, journalists and other stakeholders.

However, criticism assumes a different character when it is presented as an established fact without adequate verification.

The Court therefore emphasised that there must be a clear distinction between:

• Factually supported criticism and unverified allegations;
• Constructive institutional scrutiny and uninformed assertions;
• Academic discussion and misleading presentation of facts; and
• Responsible public discourse and material capable of creating misconceptions.

This distinction becomes particularly significant in the context of school education, where students may not yet possess the background necessary to independently assess complex institutional claims.

 

School Curriculum Requires Accuracy and Balance

The Court placed particular emphasis on the responsibility associated with educational material.

School textbooks play an important role in shaping students’ understanding of constitutional institutions. Material concerning the Judiciary, Legislature, Executive and other public institutions must therefore be carefully researched, factually accurate and presented in an objective manner.

The Court observed that unverified criticism should not find its way into a school curriculum intended for “impressionable minds”.

The concern was not that students should be shielded from criticism of institutions. Rather, the Court recognised that students should be introduced to such criticism through verified, balanced and educationally appropriate material.

A curriculum can discuss institutional shortcomings, corruption, accountability and judicial criticism, but such discussion should be based upon reliable facts and presented within the broader constitutional framework.

 

Clarification Regarding Earlier Observation

The Court also clarified an important aspect concerning three academics involved in the preparation of the curriculum.

An application had been filed seeking clarification of an observation contained in the Court’s order dated May 22, 2026.

The relevant paragraph had recorded a submission made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the curriculum prepared by the applicants had not been placed before the Committee at all levels and therefore could not be described as a collective decision.

The Supreme Court clarified that this portion of the earlier order was merely a recording of the submission made before it.

The Court made it clear that the statement did not constitute a finding, observation or direction of the Court against the academics concerned.

This clarification demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between a submission made by a party and an independent judicial finding.

 

Expert Committee’s Review

During the proceedings, an Expert Committee was constituted to examine the disputed chapter and related material.

The Committee comprised:

• Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Indu Malhotra;
• Former Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal; and
• Professor Prakash Singh.

The Expert Committee completed its review of the chapter and other relevant material.

It worked in collaboration with the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, and the reconstituted National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC).

Following the review, a revised text dealing with the role and functioning of the Judiciary was prepared.

 

Revised Chapter Found Balanced and Objective

The Supreme Court noted that the revised chapter had subsequently been approved, circulated among students and put into classroom use.

After examining the revised material, the Court found that it provided an objective, factually accurate and balanced account of the Judiciary.

Importantly, the revised material addressed both the constitutional role of the Judiciary and the mechanisms relating to judicial independence and accountability.

The Court found that the revised chapter neither glorified the Judiciary nor unfairly disparaged it.

This approach reflects the constitutional balance between maintaining institutional respect and allowing legitimate scrutiny.

 

Apology and Corrective Measures

During the proceedings, unconditional apologies were tendered by the NCERT Director and the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy.

Other corrective measures were also undertaken, including:

1. Recall of the offending publication;
2. Reconstitution of the National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee;
3. Review of the disputed material by the Expert Committee;
4. Preparation and implementation of revised educational material; and
5. Assurances concerning appropriate content and vetting of educational material relating to public institutions.

Considering these developments, the Supreme Court held that the underlying objective of the suo-motu proceedings had been substantially achieved.

 

Show-Cause Notices Discharged

In view of the apologies and corrective measures undertaken, the Court discharged the show-cause notices issued to the concerned Secretary and the NCERT Director.

The Court nevertheless directed the Union of India, NCERT and the concerned authorities to remain bound by their assurances regarding the preparation and vetting of educational material concerning public institutions, including the Judiciary, in future editions and curricula.

Thus, while the immediate dispute was brought to an end, the Court reinforced the importance of institutional safeguards in the preparation of educational content.

 

Key Legal Significance

The decision carries broader significance beyond the particular textbook controversy.

1. Judiciary Is Not Beyond Criticism

The Court expressly recognised that criticism of the Judiciary is an integral part of constitutional democracy. Judicial institutions must remain open to fair and informed scrutiny.

2. Criticism Must Be Responsible

The decision does not create a restriction on criticism. Instead, it emphasises that criticism should be based on facts, reason and an appropriate mechanism.

3. Educational Material Requires Greater Care

Content intended for schoolchildren must undergo appropriate factual and institutional scrutiny, particularly when it concerns constitutional institutions.

4. Distinction Between Submission and Judicial Finding

The Court’s clarification regarding the academics reinforces an important procedural principle: recording a submission made by a party does not necessarily amount to an independent finding by the Court.

5. Accountability and Institutional Independence Can Coexist

The judgment demonstrates that judicial independence does not mean immunity from accountability. Both principles can operate simultaneously within a constitutional framework.

 

Constructive Criticism and Constitutional Democracy

The Supreme Court’s observations are particularly relevant in the present era, where public institutions are frequently discussed and criticised across traditional and digital media.

A healthy democracy requires citizens to question institutions and engage in informed debate. At the same time, democratic discourse can lose its value when allegations are circulated without verification or presented as established facts.

The Court’s approach therefore seeks to preserve a middle ground: neither unquestioning institutional deference nor irresponsible criticism.

Constructive criticism should identify shortcomings, examine institutional practices and encourage reform while remaining grounded in facts and reason.

 

Balancing Judicial Independence with Institutional Accountability

The observations of the Supreme Court also reaffirm the delicate balance between judicial independence and institutional accountability. Independence of the Judiciary does not imply that judicial functioning is immune from public or academic scrutiny. Rather, accountability strengthens public confidence when criticism is based on verified facts, constitutional principles and reasoned analysis. The Court’s emphasis on an “appropriate forum” and “fair, rational mechanism” indicates that criticism should contribute to institutional improvement rather than undermine public understanding through unsupported allegations.

 

Wider Implications for Constitutional Education

The decision carries significance for the manner in which constitutional institutions are introduced to young citizens. Legal and civic education should encourage students to understand both the strengths and limitations of democratic institutions, including the mechanisms available for accountability and reform. However, such education must be factually accurate, balanced and age-appropriate. The judgment therefore reinforces that fostering critical thinking among students does not require unverified assertions; instead, it requires presenting institutional issues in a manner that enables students to develop an informed and rational understanding of democracy and the rule of law.

 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade–8 (Part-2) Published by NCERT and Ancillary Issues reinforces an important constitutional principle: criticism of the Judiciary is legitimate and necessary, but it must be fair, informed and responsible.

The Court’s intervention also underscores the special responsibility attached to educational content. School textbooks should encourage constitutional understanding and critical thinking, but criticism of public institutions must be supported by verified facts and presented in an objective and balanced manner.

By recognising both the legitimacy of criticism and the need for responsible discourse, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that institutional accountability and institutional respect are not contradictory values. Rather, both are essential to the functioning of a healthy constitutional democracy.

The suo motu proceedings were ultimately disposed of and closed after the corrective measures, revised curriculum and assurances provided by the concerned authorities. The Court also appreciated the work undertaken by the Expert Committee and the reconstituted NSTC in reviewing and improving the educational material.