Corruption in Judiciary NCERT Topic Removed? Supreme Court vs NCERT Controversy Explained

A significant conflict arose between the Indian government and the Judiciary concerning content in a Class 8 NCERT social science textbook. The chapter discussed issues within the Indian judicial system, specifically focusing on the high number of pending cases and allegations of judicial corruption, triggering a major constitutional and institutional confrontation.

The NCERT Textbook Controversy Explained

A section in the Class 8 textbook highlighted concerns about how the judicial system functions. It mainly focused on:

1. Pendency of Cases

• The book mentioned that a large number of cases remain pending in courts. It referred to around 81,000 pending cases in the Supreme Court alone, along with millions more in High Courts and lower courts.

• The discussion connected this delay to the principle “justice delayed is justice denied,” a phrase often used by the judiciary itself.

2. Judicial Corruption

• The chapter also referred to concerns about corruption and questionable conduct within the judicial system. This inclusion became the most controversial part of the discussion and led many to question whether the Corruption in Judiciary NCERT Topic Removed? The decision was influenced by institutional pressure.

Judiciary's Reaction and NCERT's Response

The publication of this content elicited a strong reaction from the legal community and the Judiciary. Senior lawyers protested, and the matter escalated, leading the Supreme Court of India to take suo motu cognizance of the issue.

• Suo motu cognizance means the court initiated proceedings on its own, often based on public information like news reports, without requiring a formal complaint.

• The Chief Justice of India (CJI) declared that the NCERT textbook content was an attempt to defame and scandalize the judiciary. The court questioned the publication of such material without its approval.

In response to this judicial pressure, NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) issued a public apology even before the formal Supreme Court hearing.

• NCERT announced it would recall the already distributed textbooks.

• It is committed to rewriting the controversial section and re-releasing the corrected book.

This sequence of events underscores a clear Executive vs. Judiciary conflict. The Judiciary perceived the government (via NCERT) as attempting to tarnish its image, while the government maintained it had no such intention.

Underlying Constitutional Question: Checks, Balances, and Accountability

This controversy brought a fundamental constitutional question to the forefront. The Indian Constitution establishes three principal organs: the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary. All three are responsible for upholding the Constitution and serving citizens.

A central tenet of this structure is the system of checks and balances, designed to prevent any single institution from acquiring absolute power. The principle that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies to institutions as much as to individuals.

• The Judiciary regularly scrutinizes the actions of the Legislature and the Executive.

• However, this incident raised a critical question: If the Judiciary can question the other two branches, who can question the Judiciary? Questions were raised regarding the judiciary's own conduct and selectivity.

Factual Basis for the Textbook's Claims

Despite the controversy surrounding the textbook's presentation, the underlying issues it highlighted are supported by data and acknowledged problems within the judicial system.

1. Case Pendency: It is an undisputed fact that a high volume of cases are pending across all judicial levels. Many cases are over a decade old, with nearly 80% still awaiting disposal.

2. Judicial Vacancies: There are over 400 judicial vacancies within the system.

3. Low Judge-to-Population Ratio: India faces a very low ratio of approximately 21 judges per million people.

4. Consequences of Delay:

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: Delays in justice are often equated to a violation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

• High Number of Undertrial Prisoners: A significant consequence of judicial delay is the large population of undertrial prisoners. Approximately 70-75% of inmates in Indian jails are undertrials, meaning they have not yet been convicted.

• Socio-Economic Impact: Prolonged delays hinder social justice and result in continuous economic loss, impacting the nation's GDP.

Institutional Tussle and its Impact

Despite NCERT's apology and the withdrawal of the textbook, the Supreme Court continued to hear the case, with the CJI expressing significant displeasure. The central issue evolved from a textbook chapter into a direct confrontation between two powerful state institutions.

The primary victim in this institutional tussle is the Indian citizen, for whom these institutions were established. This conflict diverts attention from addressing the real societal problems and raises concerns about the effective functioning of the constitutional system of checks and balances.