The Supreme Court’s Fury Over a School Lesson: Will the Chief Justice Lead a Cleanup in the Judiciary?
In a rare and decisive intervention, Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant recently took suo motu cognizance of a Class 8 NCERT Social Science textbook that referred to “corruption at various levels of the judiciary” as one of the challenges facing the institution. The chapter in Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Part 2) listed this alongside case backlogs and judge shortages, while noting the judges’ code of conduct, the possibility of impeachment for serious misconduct, and ongoing efforts to enhance transparency through technology. It even quoted a former Chief Justice on how such instances affect public confidence. The apex court, describing the reference as a “calculated, deep-rooted attempt” to denigrate the judiciary, ordered the immediate impounding of all physical copies and a ban on digital circulation. NCERT promptly withdrew the book from its website, and government sources have indicated the offending portions will be excised.
No one can dispute the imperative of safeguarding the judiciary’s integrity. As the final arbiter of constitutional rights and the last resort for the ordinary citizen — the hapless public seeking justice against the powerful — the institution’s reputation is its greatest asset. Any attempt to undermine public faith in it deserves scrutiny. Yet the swiftness and severity of the response to a school textbook invite a necessary corollary: if the Chief Justice can act with such alacrity to remove a mention of corruption from children’s lessons, can the same resolve be channelled into addressing the very concerns the lesson alluded to?
Recent events provide context without exaggeration. In March 2025, firefighters responding to a blaze at the official residence of a sitting Delhi High Court judge discovered a large amount of unaccounted cash. The judge was promptly transferred to his parent High Court in Allahabad; an inquiry was ordered, and removal proceedings are now underway. The episode, though under investigation, underscores that isolated lapses can and do occur, and that institutional mechanisms must respond transparently and decisively.
The Supreme Court itself has, in its own judgments, confronted uncomfortable realities elsewhere. In the 2023 Shiv Sena case, a Constitution Bench held that the then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari lacked objective material to direct a floor test for the Uddhav Thackeray government and that his action was not justified. The Court effectively ruled the move unconstitutional in precipitating the change of government, though it stopped short of upending the subsequent formation after the resignation. In the landmark electoral bonds judgment of February 2024, the Court struck down the scheme as unconstitutional and violative of the right to information, ordering full disclosure of donors. Yet it did not direct confiscation of the thousands of crores already received by various political parties through the now-scrapped route — a decision later upheld against review petitions.
Beyond judgments, the post-retirement landscape has long invited comment. Several judges have accepted constitutional or statutory positions after demitting office — appointments as governors, tribunal chairpersons, or even nominations to the Rajya Sabha. Former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi’s nomination to the Upper House months after retirement is one prominent example; others, such as Justice P. Sathasivam’s appointment as Governor of Kerala, have similarly sparked debate. While many retired judges serve with distinction and bring valuable expertise, the pattern inevitably raises questions about perceived influence and the need for clearer norms, perhaps including a cooling-off period, to eliminate even the shadow of doubt.
Public perception surveys have reflected these concerns historically. A Transparency International study from two decades ago ranked the judiciary as the second most corrupt public institution in South Asia after the police, based on citizens’ experiences with bribes and delays. Though the judiciary has since introduced notable reforms — digitisation, live-streaming of proceedings, and stricter disclosure norms — lingering perceptions persist, particularly around lower courts where most citizens interact with the system.
Adding weight to these concerns is recent official data presented in the Lok Sabha in February 2026. The office of the Chief Justice of India received 8,630 complaints against sitting judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts between 2016 and 2025. The numbers show an upward trend in recent years, with 1,170 complaints in 2024 (the highest in the decade) and 1,102 in 2025. These figures, shared by the Law Minister, pertain to grievances handled through the judiciary’s in-house mechanism, where the CJI and High Court Chief Justices are empowered to receive and address complaints internally. No comprehensive public breakdown exists on how many remain pending at various stages, the outcomes of inquiries, or the proportion dismissed versus those leading to action. For subordinate judiciary complaints, High Courts oversee similar processes, but aggregated national pending figures are not routinely disclosed in the same manner. This opacity fuels calls for greater transparency in tracking and resolving such matters.
The judiciary’s strength lies not in denying challenges but in confronting them head-on. Acknowledging backlogs, vacancies, and occasional misconduct does not weaken the institution; it demonstrates maturity and invites public partnership in reform. The Chief Justice’s outrage at the textbook is understandable as a defence of institutional dignity. But the deeper courage would lie in spearheading a visible “cleanup mission”: expediting inquiries into complaints, strengthening the in-house mechanism for accountability with periodic public reporting on disposals and pendency, ensuring faster filling of vacancies to reduce delays, and fostering greater transparency in the collegium process and post-retirement engagements.
India’s democracy rests on three pillars, but for the common man — the villager denied land rights, the citizen battling bureaucratic high-handedness, the whistle-blower facing reprisal — the judiciary is the ultimate shield. When that shield is questioned, the response cannot be limited to banning a paragraph in a schoolbook. It must extend to relentless self-improvement so that faith is not demanded but earned anew each day.
The NCERT episode offers the judiciary a mirror. The question before the Chief Justice and his brethren is whether they will use this moment merely to polish the reflection or to address what the mirror reveals. The public, which looks to the Supreme Court as its final hope, awaits the answer with quiet expectation. True institutional greatness is revealed not when criticism is silenced, but when reform is embraced.
