The Supreme Court recently observed that the Judiciary, as an institution, is open to criticism and that fair, informed and constructive criticism of judicial functioning is a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, however, emphasised that such criticism must be expressed through an appropriate forum and a fair and rational mechanism. The Court cautioned against incorporating unverified criticism into school curricula meant for impressionable children.
While wrapping up the case over an NCERT Grade 8 chapter on judicial corruption, the Court made it clear that the judiciary is open to criticism and does not reject feedback.
The Court said constructive critique contributes to institutional accountability and self-correction, but stressed that the distinction is not between criticism and silence, but between responsible discourse and uninformed assertion.
The proceedings arose from concerns over the contents of the textbook chapter. During the course of the matter, an Expert Committee comprising former Supreme Court Judge Justice Indu Malhotra, former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal and Professor Prakash Singh was constituted to review the chapter and other material placed before it.
The Court noted that the Committee, in collaboration with the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, and the reconstituted National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC), prepared a revised text dealing with the role and functioning of the Judiciary. The revised chapter was subsequently approved, circulated among students and brought into classroom use.
After examining the revised material, the Court found that it presented an objective, factually accurate and balanced account of the Judiciary, explaining its constitutional role as well as safeguards relating to judicial independence and accountability, without either glorifying or unfairly disparaging the institution. The Court also clarified an aspect of its earlier May 22, 2026 order concerning three academics involved in the curriculum preparation.
The Court said that the earlier order had merely recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s submission 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.
Clarifying its position, the bench noted that this was simply a recorded statement rather than a court finding, observation, or direction. The Court further noted the unconditional apologies tendered by the NCERT Director and the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, the recall of the offending publication, the reconstitution of the NSTC and completion of the Expert Committee’s review.
In view of these developments, the Court held that the underlying objective of the suo motu proceedings had been substantially achieved. The show-cause notices issued to the Secretary and NCERT Director were accordingly discharged.
The Court directed the Union Government, NCERT and other concerned authorities to remain bound by their assurances regarding the content and vetting of educational material concerning public institutions, including the Judiciary, in future editions and curricula.
It also appreciated the work undertaken by the Expert Committee and the reconstituted NSTC in reviewing the curriculum. The suo motu writ petition was accordingly disposed of and closed.
The post Supreme Court says judiciary open to criticism, but unverified claims cannot enter school curriculum appeared first on India Legal.