Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Tuesday took strong objection to references to “corruption in the judiciary” in a newly released Class 8 Social Science textbook by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), asserting that he would not permit the institution’s integrity to be defamed.
The Chief Justice confirmed that he has already taken suo motu cognisance of the matter.
CJI: “Law Will Take Its Course”
Responding to concerns raised in open court, CJI Surya Kant said he was fully aware of the issue and had been receiving numerous calls and messages from across the judicial fraternity.
“I will not allow anyone on earth to taint the integrity of the institution and defame the institution. At any cost, I will not permit it. Whosoever high it may be, the law will take its course,” the CJI said, adding that both the Bar and the Bench were “upset.”
He indicated that appropriate steps had already been initiated.
Issue Raised by Senior Advocates
The matter was mentioned before the court by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, accompanied by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
Sibal said members of the legal fraternity were “deeply disturbed” that Class 8 students were being taught about alleged corruption in the judiciary. Calling it “entirely scandalous,” he urged the court to take suo motu notice.
In response, the CJI assured that the issue concerned the “entire institution” and confirmed that action was already underway.
What the NCERT Textbook Says
According to a report published by The Indian Express on February 24, the new Class 8 Social Science textbook includes a section on “corruption in the judiciary” within a chapter titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society.”
The chapter reportedly lists “corruption at various levels of the judiciary” and “massive backlog” of cases due to factors such as inadequate numbers of judges, complex legal procedures, and poor infrastructure as key challenges facing the judicial system.
The earlier edition of the textbook focussed on the structure, role, and independence of the judiciary, and referred only to delays in justice, noting that “justice delayed is justice denied.”
