The Supreme Court of India has made a stand on the discussion of the judiciary in school textbooks by passing a so-called outright blanket ban on a revised Class VIII textbook on Social Science by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). This was banned following a chapter on the Role of the Judiciary in our Society where corruption in the judiciary was analyzed, a huge backlog of cases was mentioned and delays in justice was attributed to the systemic nature of the system through poorly trained and inadequate judges and lack of simplicity in the system.
The answer of the court was quick and categorical in the said case. The court headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said that the contents of the textbook were extremely contemptuous and reckless and could harm the reputation of the judiciary. The court asked all the publication, reprinting, and other digital publishing to stop and serve notices to the top officials of the education department and the director of NCERT to give reasons why the controversial chapter was included.
NCERT in defense, pulled the textbook out of circulation, and released a statement of remorse over what it termed as a lapse in judgement, that the objectionable material had unwittingly slipped into the chapter. The response of the Supreme Court and the backtracking of NCERT has been criticized, with critics saying that factual information on judicial challenges, when presented in fact and context, should be taught in schools.
What the Textbook Said
The chapter cited government statistics which indicated that over 53 million cases are pending in Indian courts as per the reports. It also presented reasons that caused delays such as lack of sufficient number of judges, old procedures and ineffective infrastructure. It has not targeted individuals but instead referred to structural issues, which are virtually accepted by all legal scholars.
The reaction by lawyers who had read the chapter was strong. Some termed the content as being scandalous and disrespectful. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal declared it highly disturbing that school children were being given the sense that the judiciary was corrupt and another senior counsel described the chapter as one sided because it did not cover corruption in politics and bureaucracy.
Education Minister V. Sivankutty of Kerala posted on social media that it was regrettable that material that degrades the judiciary, which is one of the pillars of democracy, had been included and asked an independent expert committee to look into the recent NCERT revisions. He pointed out that the young generation ought to be educated on how to respect constitutional institutions.
Judicial Accountability: The Why and Why Not
The controversy surrounding textbooks was part of a wider movement of judicial accountability by the general population. Statistics available before the Lok Sabha show that more than 8,600 complaints have been brought against sitting judges since 2016 to 2025. The statistics demonstrate a judicial system under increased scrutiny: in 2024 and 2025, there were 1,170 and 1,102 complaints, respectively, and the least complaints occurred in 2020 (518).
Opponents of the response of the Supreme Court state that the recognition of such data in the learning content is the truth, but it is not disrespect. They say open debate about institutional issues, supported by factual evidence, help students to know about governance and democracy.
Criminal Cases of High Profile that Highlight the debate.
A number of high-profile instances of judicial corruption and misconduct have provided the general discourse and may have inspired textbook citations:
Justice Yashwant Varma (2025)
In March 2025 a huge amount of money was discovered in a storeroom in the house of the judge of the High Court in Delhi, estimated to be 15 crore. Justice Varma refuted personal connection regarding the money. The Supreme Court acknowledged the case as a grave strain of judicial integrity and sent the judge back to his parent court at Allahabad High Court and requested an internal enquiry. He was then suggested to be impeached by a committee and the case is still pending with the government.
Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma Recusal Case (2025)
Justice Sharma recused himself in a hearing of an insolvency petition, in which Byju Raveendran of Byju’s had filed an insolvency petition in the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. He claimed that one of the senior judicial members had approached him in order to seek favourable guidance on behalf of a party. When Sharma recused, it created discussion on the issue of influence peddling and opacities in courts.
R.K. Mittal Case (2018–2019)
One of the tribunal judges was connected with fraudulent drawing of 50 crores of money that were to be used in compensations, Enforcement Directorate conducted investigations, and after a Supreme Court inquiry in 2019, Mittal was dismissed off of the Railway Claims Tribunal. By March 2025, the police department had seized properties associated with him.
Soumitra Sen (2011)
Sen was the first independent India judge to be impeached in the Rajya Sabha on misappropriation of funds. He was accused of taking 33 lakh as a court appointed receiver and then keeping it in his own possession, and resigned before the Lok Sabha could prosecute him, and was not prosecuted after he resigned.
Has a friction BW government and judiciary happened before?
The controversy about the textbooks covering judicial narrative is also the manifestation of older disputes between the judiciary and other elements of the government:
In 2015, the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, aimed at substituting the collegium system of appointing judges, was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
In April 2025, then-Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar accused judicial overreach by the Supreme court stepping into a Tamil Nadu governor standoff, and said Article 142 powers were comparable to a nuclear missile.
Former Union Law Minister, Kiren Rijiju, got into several confrontations with the Supreme Court, accusing retired judges and activists of being part of an anti-India gang that attempts to transform the judiciary into anti-India opposition.
These cases have brought into focus debate on judicial power, sovereignty and the relationship that the judiciary is to bear to the democratic accountability.
But coming back to the issue at hand, critics have responded by arguing that taking systemic problems out of the education debate will threaten to sanitise the reality and deny students a critical grasp of that reality.