Burying head in the sand

Stifling discussion would not make issues facing the judiciary go away

Alok Tiwari

When the world is transfixed with happenings in the middle east, it does seem a little odd to return to a kerfuffle that occupied India in the preceding days. India’s supreme court absolutely blew its top when it was reported that a new version of class VIII textbook mentioned corruption in judiciary as one of the factors affecting delivery of justice in the country. The court took judicial cognizance of the paragraph. It banned the book and ordered all physical and digital copies be prevented from circulation. Not just that, Chief Justice Surya Kant saw in it a deep-rooted conspiracy to malign and undermine the judiciary.

Senior counsels like Kapil Sibal (who, ironically, has rightly been lamenting about erosion of civil liberties in the country) and Abhishek Manu Singhvi brought up the issue before the court. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who normally has no hesitation is defending the most indefensible acts of the government before the same court, tendered an apology post-haste. Within days even Prime Minister Narendra Modi stepped in calling the mention of judicial corruption wrong and ordering corrective action. The investigations into how exactly the paragraph got inserted are ongoing. Since Justice Surya Kant has called for heads to roll, they undoubtedly will. The students of CBSE may soon expect a more sanitized version of the book.

To an ordinary citizen, the paragraph itself appears harmless. I hope it is nobody’s case that corruption does not exist in judiciary. Many eminent jurists including several past chief justices of the country have brought this up, some when they were in office. Indeed, the country right now is grappling with a case of cash stash found in the house of a high court judge. Complaints about corruption have officially been made. Collegiums of different high courts and even supreme court have considered such complaints while selecting the judges.

Clearly, it is not the truth of that text that offended the judicial establishment. What disturbed the lawyers and judges was the fact that it appeared in a class VIII textbook and that it was published by NCERT, a government body. Textbooks in India, specially for school students, have traditionally confined themselves to stating bald facts without providing any kind of context or perspective. This may keep controversies like the present one away but makes for poor educational aid. Children should learn about the real world in an age-appropriate manner. The books should not just give knowledge but must also provoke thinking. This cannot be done by avoiding controversial subjects. Of course, it needs to be done with care and with enough context so that truth is conveyed without undermining the dignity of those institutions.

Second issue is whether class VIII is the right age for students to learn about these matters. These are students in early teens in modern age with access to cell phones and social media. They are exposed to a myriad of issues much more troublesome than judicial corruption. So simply making them aware of various issues facing the society may not be inappropriate. There are always teachers who can guide the discussions in the class. They can be given guidelines about how these issues are to be presented. The students may not have a very realistic view of the world if they grow up believing that all institutions work exactly how it is mentioned in the Constitution.

The bar and bench both seem troubled by the authors of the book having singled out judiciary for such a mention. Here their ire is completely justified. It is unfair to just mention alleged corruption in judiciary while disregarding corruption in other institutions. If anything, the executive and the legislative branches are even more prone to corruption. Why should not the textbooks contain references to things like electoral financing and crony capitalism or how political parties attempt to buy votes? Why should we not discuss dangers of communal polarisation perpetrated for electoral gains?

Students must learn about factors affecting fair conduct of elections, about impartiality or the lack of it in Election Commission, questions about EVMs, and why the model code of conduct was needed. They must be told why the bureaucracy is failing to deliver as well, corruption in transfers and posting, and political control over bureaucrats. Why spare even the media? Textbooks should have discussions about its ownership structure, its objectivity, increasing conglomeratization, and what is preventing it from speaking truth to power.

The point is every institution has undesirable aspects. We cannot make them go away by burying our heads in the sand. That will only make those wounds fester. Bringing them out in the open may lead to better practices and better outcomes. For this it is necessary that we at least acknowledge the problems exist. Instead of taking umbrage at mere mention of alleged judicial corruption, would it not have been better to focus on why this perception exists? Is it mere perception or reality?

In a very broad sense, everything that prevents an institution from working as it is supposed to be is corruption. When lawyers indulge in bench hunting, it is corruption. When important cases are put off for years because adjudicating them might be uncomfortable, it is corruption. When cases involving influential or well-known persons are taken up on priority while those of others remain off roster for years, it is corruption. When judiciary tolerates or even enables deprivation of liberties of individuals for years on flimsy charges, it is corruption. When it fails to make the executive accountable when such persons are eventually proved innocent, it is corruption. When members of higher judiciary keep coming from a handful of families, it is corruption.

How refreshing and nice would it have been if higher ups in the judiciary had used the occasion to address these issues instead of stifling any discussion on them.

This column appeared in Lokmat Times on Mar 5, 2026