Supreme Court says judiciary cannot be averse to criticism

The Supreme Court said the judiciary cannot be averse to criticism but stressed that it must be fair, informed and constructive. The observations came while closing proceedings over an NCERT Class 8 textbook chapter referring to corruption in the judiciary

New Delhi: The judiciary is not, and cannot be, averse to criticism, the Supreme Court has said, while cautioning that such criticism should be voiced through the appropriate forum and in a fair, rational manner.

The observations by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana came while closing suo motu proceedings pertaining to the contents of the Class 8 NCERT textbook, which referred to corruption in the judiciary.

---

The top court said the distinction lies not between criticism and silence, but between responsible discourse and uninformed assertion.

“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.

“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,” the bench said in its September 1 order, whose contents were later made available.

The apex court took note of the fact that the controversial chapter had been replaced based on revisions suggested by an expert panel constituted by the Centre.

The bench was hearing a suo motu case concerning NCERT’s Class 8 social science book, which contained “offending” content on corruption in the judiciary.

The top court had earlier modified its March 11 order that directed the Centre, states and others to disassociate from three academicians following a row over the controversial chapter on corruption in the judiciary.

The apex court, which considered the explanation given by the three academicians, had left it open to the Centre, states, Union Territories, public universities and institutions that receive funds from the central or state governments to take an independent decision on the issue without being influenced by its observations made in the March 11 order.

It had also recalled a part of the March 11 order that recorded that the three academicians — Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar — had “deliberately and knowingly” misrepresented the facts to project a negative image of the Indian judiciary to Class 8 students.

The bench had passed the order while hearing an application filed by the three academicians, who explained their stand and said that no individual had the sole say in drafting the content and that it was a collective process.

The court had also observed that its comments were made in the context of the contents and not the individuals.

On March 11, acting tough against the three experts involved in drafting the controversial chapter in the National Council of Educational Research and Training’s (NCERT) social science book for Class 8, the court had directed the Centre and all states to disassociate from them.

It had directed the Centre to form a committee of domain experts within a week for the purpose of finalising the curriculum of NCERT’s legal studies for not only Class 8 but also higher classes.

On February 26, the apex court imposed a “blanket ban” on any further publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of the NCERT Class 8 social science textbook that contained the “offending” content on corruption in the judiciary, saying they had fired a gunshot and the judiciary was “bleeding”.