On NCERT books, Chief Justice Surya Kant’s anger is justified

AMIDDLE-SCHOOL classroom is a space for inquiry, not an arena for institutional power-play. That’s why the new NCERT social science textbook for Class VIII invites questions of bad faith. After a report in this newspaper revealed its content, the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Surya Kant rightly stepped up to red-flag this. It is reassuring that Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has expressed regret and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has spoken of the need for accountability. The issue of public corruption is urgent and that of judicial corruption even more so. As the system’s centrepiece, the judiciary is tasked with keeping all other institutions honest and committed to constitutional morality. Over the years, SC judges have themselves underlined the importance of judicial probity. Indeed, the section in the textbook in question quotes former Chief Justice B R Gavai: “… sadly, there have been instances of corruption and misconduct that have surfaced even within the judiciary… potentially eroding faith in the integrity of the system as a whole”. The judiciary’s seminal position and role also means, however, that any assessment of its institutional record must be made with due respect and responsibility. The NCERT has expressed regret but that isn’t persuasive — given its own record.

For, the inclusion of judicial corruption is the latest in a dodgy list of politically driven deletions, erasures, and additions in the name of rationalising textbook content, on the watch of this government. References to the 2002 Gujarat riots have been purged and content relating to the Mughal era pruned, mention of caste discrimination has been diluted and references to the demolition of the Babri Masjid removed. The context of the current controversy is, also, this: In polarised times, the space for checks and balances seems increasingly constricted. The government repeatedly labels the Opposition as “anti-national”, derides the media as part of an allegedly discredited “ecosystem” ranged against it. In times like these, the judiciary’s check-and-balance role is even more salient and delicate and needs to be protected — while the SC is often accused of giving the government the benefit of doubt, it has reiterated that its mandate is adherence to the Constitution, not to play the role of the Opposition.

Certainly, then, CJI Surya Kant’s anger is justified. That said, a blanket ban and notices of contempt do a disservice to the Court’s reputation of having broad shoulders. It must step up to protect itself, but with due respect, it would be disappointing if it sounds like it countenances anything that resembles censorship. The Court has made its point, the NCERT has withdrawn the book. This should provide closure — and send a clear message to the government.

Overall Analysis

This editorial examines the controversy surrounding a Class VIII social science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the reaction of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Surya Kant. It argues that while the Chief Justice’s anger is understandable, the Court must also avoid appearing intolerant of scrutiny.

The piece begins by framing the classroom as a space for inquiry rather than political manipulation. The phrase “bad faith” signals suspicion that the textbook’s content — particularly references to judicial corruption — may not be academically neutral but politically motivated. The editorial acknowledges that corruption in the judiciary is a legitimate subject and even notes that former Chief Justice B R Gavai had publicly acknowledged instances of misconduct. This establishes that the issue is not about denying corruption but about context and intent. The judiciary’s “seminal position” in safeguarding constitutional morality requires discussions about it to be handled with responsibility and balance.

The second paragraph broadens the scope, placing the controversy within a pattern of curriculum revisions under the current government. It lists examples such as the removal of references to the 2002 Gujarat riots, pruning of Mughal history, dilution of caste discrimination, and deletion of the Babri Masjid demolition. These examples are used to argue that textbook revisions appear selective and politically driven. The editorial suggests that in increasingly polarised times — where the government labels critics “anti-national” and questions media credibility — institutional checks and balances become more crucial. The Supreme Court’s role, it stresses, is to uphold the Constitution, not to act as an opposition force.

In the concluding section, the editorial balances its argument. It affirms that CJI Surya Kant’s anger is justified because the judiciary must defend its institutional integrity. However, it cautions against overreaction, such as blanket bans or contempt notices, which may project intolerance and resemble censorship. The Court, known for having “broad shoulders,” should demonstrate confidence rather than fragility. Since NCERT has withdrawn the book, the editorial suggests that closure is appropriate, accompanied by a clear message to the government.

Overall, the article blends institutional respect with critical scrutiny. It defends judicial dignity while warning against excessive assertion of power.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Probity – honesty and strong moral principles.
2. Seminal – highly influential or foundational.
3. Purged – removed completely, often forcefully.
4. Salient – most noticeable or important.
5. Countenance – to tolerate or approve of something.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial supports the Chief Justice’s strong reaction to what it views as a politically motivated textbook insertion but urges the Supreme Court to respond with restraint. It emphasizes that protecting institutional integrity should not come at the cost of appearing censorious.

Tone: Balanced yet critical — respectful of the judiciary, cautious about government actions, and reflective about democratic checks and balances.