"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 Educa