"Judges Are Not Saints": SC Says Criticism of Judiciary Necessary
EduLaw EditorialLandmark JudgementsThe Supreme Court has held that fair, informed criticism of judicial functioning is a necessary feature of constitutional democracy — but drew the line at embedding unverified allegations of corruption in school textbooks meant for impressionable minds. Case Name: In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade 8 (Part 2) Published by NCERT and Ancillary Issues Case Number: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1/2026 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana Order Date: September 1, 2026 ABSTRACT "Judges are not saints. We are open to criticism. But when you teach an 11-year-old that the judiciary is corrupt, you sow seeds of distrust in the very institution that protects the Constitution." With these striking words, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant disposed of one of the most closely watched institutional controversies of 2026. The Supreme Court closed suo motu contempt proceedings that it had initiated after a Class 8 NCERT Social Science textbook contained a chapter titled "Corruption in the Judiciary." While discharging show-cause notices against senior education officials, the Court declared that constructive criticism of judicial functioning is a "legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy," but distinguished such criticism sharply from uninformed assertions planted without verification into school curricula meant for impressionable minds. The Bench commended the work of an expert committee that produced a revised, balanced chapter and directed the Union Government and NCERT to remain bound by their assurances on the vetting of future educational material relating to public institutions. INTRODUCTION — WHY THIS CASE MATTERS The relationship between institutional accountability and public trust is among the most delicate balances in any constitutional democracy. When does legitimate scrutiny of the judiciary cross the line into reckless vilification — and who decides where that line falls? This question moved from the realm of academic debate to live judicial proceedings in early 2026, after a newly released NCERT textbook for Class 8 students devoted an entire sub-topic to "Corruption in the Judiciary." The Supreme Court's response — from the initial blanket ban on the textbook in February to the final closure order on September 1 — became a defining episode of the term, raising questions about free speech, contempt jurisdiction, pedagogical standards, and the judiciary's own willingness to face scrutiny. The closing order, authored by the Bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, stands as a nuanced document. It neither retreats from the Court's initial concern nor doubles down on its harshest early rhetoric. Instead, it carves out a principled distinction: criticism of judges is welcome and necessary, but the forum and form in which that criticism is expressed — particularly when the audience is children — must be responsible, informed, and verified. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The controversy began with a report published by The Indian Express on February 24, 2026, which revealed that the newly released NCERT Social Science textbook for Grade 8, titled "Exploring Society: India and Beyond" (Part 2), contained a chapter called "The Role of the Judiciary in our Society." Within this chapter, a sub-topic was explicitly titled "Corruption in the Judiciary." The content referred to the large number of complaints received against judges and presented them in a manner that, according to the Court, gave "the impression that no action was taken" on those complaints. Critically, the chapter made no corresponding reference to the constitutional role discharged by the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the District Courts, nor to the institutional reforms and self-corrective mechanisms the judiciary has undertaken over the decades. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the contents on February 26, 2026. In an intense hearing, CJI Surya Kant described the episode as a "deep-rooted, well-orchestrated conspiracy" to malign the judiciary and imposed a blanket ban on any further publication, reprinting, or digital dissemination of the textbook. "They fired a gunshot, judiciary is bleeding today," he observed in open court. Show-cause notices were issued to the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, and to the NCERT Director, Dr. Dinesh Prasad, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND CORRECTIVE MEASURES The institutional response was swift and conciliatory. NCERT issued a press release on February 25, 2026, describing the inclusion as an "unintentional error of judgment" and expressing regret. The Director of NCERT subsequently filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology both on his own behalf and on behalf of the organisation. Separately, the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, submitted an apology and informed the Court that systemic corrective measures had been initiated. The Union Government confirmed that 82,440 copies of the textbook that had already been circulated were recalled from schools, retail outlets, and digital platforms across the country. The Ministry of Education constituted a three-member expert committee comprising former Supreme Court Judge Justice Indu Malhotra, former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, and Professor Prakash Singh. In addition, the National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC) was reconstituted as a 20-member high-powered committee, co-chaired by M.C. Pant and Professor Manjul Bhargava. Working in collaboration with the National Judicial Academy at Bhopal, this committee reviewed Chapter 4 and other material that had been flagged. The committee produced a revised chapter on the role and functioning of the judiciary, which was approved, circulated to students, and brought into classroom use before the closing order was delivered. THE TEXTBOOK AUTHORS AND THE RECALL OF ADVERSE OBSERVATIONS One of the most significant sub-plots in this case concerned the three academics credited with the chapter — Professor Michel Danino, Ms. Suparna Diwakar, and Mr. Alok Prasanna Kumar. In a March 11, 2026 order, the Supreme Court had directed the Centre and all State governments to disassociate from these three individuals and had recorded that they had "deliberately and knowingly" misrepresented facts to project a negative image of the Indian judiciary before students of an impressionable age. However, after the three academics filed an application explaining that no individual had sole control over the drafting process and that content creation was a collective exercise, the Supreme Court in May 2026 recalled the adverse observations. The Bench clarified that its earlier comments were made in the context of the contents and not directed at the individuals personally. The direction to disassociate was also set aside, and it was left open to the Union Government and State authorities to take independent decisions without being influenced by the Court's prior observations. This recall is significant from a due process standpoint. It acknowledged that the initial reaction — though born of genuine institutional concern — had moved faster than the facts warranted, and the Court was willing to correct course upon receiving further explanation. KEY OBSERVATIONS FROM THE CLOSING ORDER The September 1, 2026 order contains several passages that are likely to be cited in future cases involving the intersection of free speech, contempt jurisdiction, and institutional dignity. On the legitimacy of criticism, the Bench observed: "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." On the appropriate forum and manner for criticism, the Court drew a clear boundary: "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." On the distinction the Court sought to establish, the order concluded: "The distinction lies not between criticism and silence, but between responsible discourse and uninformed assertion." On the reason for exercising jurisdiction over educational content, the Bench explained: "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." The Court also assessed the revised chapter produced by the expert committee and found that it "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." CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE SOLICITOR GENERAL'S SUBMISSION A minor but legally relevant clarification was also addressed. In the May 22, 2026 order, a submission by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had been recorded stating that the textbook curriculum had not been placed before the NCERT committee at all levels and therefore could not be described as a collective decision. The three textbook authors sought clarification on whether this constituted the Court's own finding. The Bench clarified in its closing order that "the aforesaid is merely a statement recorded by this Court and does not constitute the observations or the order of this Court." ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS This case will be studied and debated for years, not for any single legal principle it establishes, but for what it reveals about the evolving tension between judicial authority and democratic accountability. Several strands of analysis are worth noting. The first is the scope of suo motu contempt jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's power to punish for contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution and to do complete justice under Article 142 is well-established. However, deploying these powers to impose a blanket ban on an educational textbook — effectively a prior restraint on published content — is extraordinary. As the SC Observer noted in its analysis, the Court's own recent jurisprudence in cases like Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat (2025) and Wikimedia Foundation v. ANI Media (2025) has cautioned against overbroad speech restrictions. The closing order, by discharging the show-cause notices and acknowledging the legitimacy of criticism, arguably pulls back from the most expansive implications of the initial intervention. The second strand concerns the impact on educational policy. The reconstitution of the NSTC as a 20-member committee, the involvement of the National Judicial Academy in vetting content about the judiciary, and the direction that authorities remain bound by their assurances on future curricula — all of these create a new institutional framework for how public institutions, particularly the judiciary, are discussed in school textbooks. Whether this framework enhances pedagogical quality or introduces a chilling effect on curriculum designers is an open question that educators and policymakers will need to monitor. The third and perhaps most enduring aspect is the normative statement the Court has made about the relationship between criticism and trust. The observation that teaching an 11-year-old that the judiciary is corrupt sows "seeds of distrust" is a powerful articulation of institutional self-interest framed in the language of civic responsibility. It implicitly raises the question of how factual information about institutional failings should be presented to students of different ages — a pedagogical question that ultimately belongs to educators, not courts, to resolve. CONCLUSION The Supreme Court's closure of suo motu proceedings in In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade 8 (Part 2) Published by NCERT brings to an end one of the most extraordinary institutional confrontations of recent years. The final order strikes a conciliatory and principled tone, recognising criticism as indispensable to democratic health while insisting that it be channelled through appropriate and responsible forums. The discharge of show-cause notices, the recall of adverse observations against the textbook authors, and the approval of the revised chapter collectively suggest that the Court viewed the corrective process as having satisfactorily addressed its concerns. What remains is the precedent — both the formal legal holdings and the broader institutional signal. Courts can be criticised, must be criticised, and judges are not saints. But the manner, the forum, and the audience for that criticism matter. The line the Supreme Court has drawn is between "responsible discourse and uninformed assertion." How future courts, governments, and educators interpret and apply that distinction will determine whether this case is remembered as a principled defence of pedagogical integrity or an uncomfortable moment in which the judiciary used its contempt power to police how it is discussed in the classroom.