The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of a section in the NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook that mentions “corruption in the judiciary.” Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant stated the court will not permit defamation of the institution. High court judges are reportedly disturbed by the textbook’s content.
Court Action
CJI Kant announced the court will address the matter independently. He indicated that the law will take its course following the court’s review. The Chief Justice described the inclusion of the chapter as a “calculated move.” He declined to elaborate further on the court’s specific concerns at this time.
Textbook Content
The newly released NCERT Class 8 textbook includes a chapter on “The role of the judiciary in our society.” Within this chapter, a section addresses “corruption in the judiciary.” This section is part of a broader discussion of challenges facing the judicial system.
Judicial Concerns
The Supreme Court views the textbook’s portrayal as a grave concern. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal questioned NCERT’s decision to teach Class 8 students about judicial corruption. He argued that such content could undermine public trust in the judiciary.
The chapter reportedly lists issues such as corruption at various judicial levels. It also highlights the significant backlog of cases. Reasons cited for the backlog include a shortage of judges, complex legal procedures, and inadequate infrastructure. Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Surya Kant reportedly expressed that the book may contradict the basic structure of the Constitution.
Legal Community Reaction
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also criticized the textbook’s content. He pointed to the specific selectivity of focusing on judicial corruption. Singhvi suggested that corruption exists in other areas but highlighted the judiciary as a particular point of concern in the textbook.
The Supreme Court’s action signifies its commitment to protecting the integrity of the judicial system. The suo motu cognizance means the court initiated the case on its own initiative, without a formal petition from an outside party. This intervention highlights the sensitivity of discussions about judicial matters in educational materials.