INDIAN JUDICIARY A QUESTION OF ANSWERS

INDIAN JUDICIARY A QUESTION OF ANSWERS

On 26th February print media all over India had front page headlines about the reaction of the apex court on the 8th class chapter on corruption in judiciary included by NCERT. One newspaper carried the title “Deep-Rooted conspiracy to Defame Judiciary: CJI”. Then a box item “Judges of the constitutional and district courts are perturbed by this. I have taken suo-moto cognizance of the issue. I will not allow anyone on the earth to defame the institution or taint its integrity. Whosoever and however high it may be, I know how to deal with it”-CJI Surya Kant”. Another headline inside was “NCERT textbook row: SC says inclusion was ‘inappropriate’”.

On 27th February print media continued its coverage of NCERT book row and apex court response. Top billed report in one of the newspaper was “SC bans NCERT book over judicial corruption chapter” “Circulation will invite serious consequences, CJI”. Reports informed that ‘Centre apologises to court, decides to permanently bar the authors from taking part in the preparation of textbooks.’ Also ‘SC refuses to accept the apology and says it will inquire if it was a deliberate and calculated design to denigrate the institution’. Then there was this box highlight, “A shot has been fired mindlessly and the judiciary is bleeding…. As the head of the institution, it is my duty to protect the institution from such macabre and baseless insinuations-CJI Surya Kant”. Inside page had “SC seeks names of people who decided contents of social sciences book”, as another title.

The above reproductions are from one of the newspapers and it was similar in all print media newspapers with the heightened responses from the highest judicial office of the country.

Although these reports in all newspapers were there on both days running into columns and columns, none in the print media, neither the editor or columnists writing in these newspapers, reacted to the rant by CJI SuryaKant. Of course it must have left CJI Surya Kant happy and satisfied that what he remarked was taken seriously by all without countering.

However, as an Indian citizen, one can and should react on whatever appears in the print media, since it’s the only source of information to ordinary citizens.

While we are about it, it is pertinent to inform that print media has belatedly reacted on the outbursts of judiciary in general and CJI in particular.

THE HINDU commented in its editorial of 2nd March, that is after 5 days of the NCERT imbroglio hitting the headlines. It titled its editorial “Selective Outrage” with sub-title “Judiciary seems quick to take offence, only when it sees itself under attack”.

The New Indian Express went public on the said issue on 5th March, that is after 8 days of apex courts outburst. Its editorial carried its comments under the title “NCERT IS IN A MESS OF ITS OWN MAKING”.

DECCAN HERALD also came on board on 5th March with its editorial response on the NCERT publication vis-à-vis the apex court response. Its editorial carried the title “Textbook case: Criticism or Contempt?”

Times of India, however, has maintained silence not wanting to cross sword with the judiciary, especially with a highly vocal ‘self-righteous’ Chief of Justice Surya Kant. This inaction, by the TOI is certainly not in right spirit.

Coming to THE HINDU (TH), it has called out the judiciary rather mildly by terming it “overreaction”. “The Supreme Court Bench that took up the NCERT class 8 social science text book case might have overreacted when it saw the critical reference to the judiciary as a ‘deep seated conspiracy’ and declared that it will not allow ‘anyone on earth’ to tarnish the judiciary’s integrity”, is the first long sentence in its editorial. However mark the restraint. The TH did not directly take the name of CJI Surya Kant, who himself remarked these words. They should have called out the rant by direct reference to CJI Kant, which TH didn’t. The TH further writes ‘Instant use of judicial corruption are real and censoring textbooks is not a corrective measure. The court perhaps saw the textbook as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary. The textbook, for instance said, ‘people do experience corruption at various levels of the judiciary and went on to describe complaints and redress mechanism. The problem is not that the textbook selectively targets the judiciary, it is that the judiciary selectively targets certain positions”, it concluded.

The New Indian Express has been comprehensively pro judiciary finding fault with NCERT in its editorial. “The part of the NCERT’s new social sciences textbooks for grade 8 that delved into judicial corruption was disturbing at various levels. The saga seemed strange to a lay person, as NCERT is an autonomous organization under the Union Ministry of Education. Its text books are not randomly authored by a single individual on whim, but by a whole panel of subject experts. The content passes through various layers on internal and external sieves from conception to execution. So was it just an inadvertent error of judgment, as the NCERT sought to claim in its apology? Or, was the Supreme Court right in reading into it a ‘well-orchestered conspiracy’ to defame the judiciary? Second, was it wise to subject students in their formative years-who are just beginning to the learn the nuances of public life – to content on corruption only in the judiciary, without mentioning its prevalence in various other walks of life? That there was little mention of the seminal role of the judiciary in preserving the nations democratic fabric did not go unnoticed”. This is the opening para in the TNIE.

It goes further and adds, “The matter snowballed after the NCERT director initially defended the content in a letter to the Supreme Court registry. The court rightly saw his response as irresponsible, contemptuous and motivated. Though dissent deliberation and discourse are essential for a vibrant democracy and institutional accountability, school textbooks cannot and should not be the forum for biased narratives that can prejudice young minds.” And it continued.

“The Legislature, the executive and the judiciary are the three important pillars of India’s constitutional democracy, with a system of checks and balances. Disquiet in some sections on an alleged attempt to soften the judiciary, which is empowered to question the executive and the legislature, was dispelled with Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan expressing anguish and promising to clean up the mess. The court banned the book and directed the withdrawal of all its sold copies as well. However there was no quietus, as the bench directd the NCERT to furnish the names of all those who had a role in drafting the offending chapter, together with the minutes of meetings where it was deliberated and finalized. Those documents have the potential of putting faces to the mischief mongers and fixing accountability”, it concluded.

The last sentence however is dangerous as it would allow direct involvement of judiciary into the working of executive. This should not happen to keep the independence of constructional segregation of all intact.

Deccan Herald had its own stand going by the legality of the issue involved. At the outset DH questioned the very intention of SC bench by posing if the stand of SC, ‘IS IT CRITICISM OR CONTEMPT’!

Going further DH wrote “One of the lessons in the NCERT text book provoked CJI Surya Kant to issue stern warning.” According to DH “It discusses corruption at various levels of the judiciary” and a “massive backlog of cases in courts”. While all are aware of the references to corruption in Judiciary, no mention of “massive backlog” in the public space. This makes it pertinent that there should have been some details in public space of what the 8th class book contained. Here it exposes the duplicity of SC bench that it did not refer to the ‘massive backlog’ in courts, at all! The massive backlog in courts across India is a fact of life, which CJI Surya Kant would do well to openly admit.

“The court’s disapproval may be seen as a selective response, even as an overreaction, leading to an act of censorship. Corruption in the judiciary has been a topic of public debate”, is a correct statement by the media. Media must insist that corruption in judiciary is an issue while stating that it is there in other section of governance as well, which should have been highlighted in the text book. The DH further quotes “The lesson quotes former CJI Justice BR Gavai himself admitting… ‘sadly there have been instances of corruption and misconduct that have surfaced even within judiciary eroding faith in the integrity of the system as a whole”. This open admission by a former CJI was enough to make CJI Surya Kant keep quiet, instead he ranted verbose in an attempt to display his linguistic skill may be, which was really not needed. Like DH tells “the Text book lesson may be seen as the governments criticism of judiciary” is probably right. Its therefore likely that this angle had incensed the CJI Surya Kant that led to his outbursts, or could it be intolerance to a credible concern about the alleged corruption in judiciary?”, DH concluded. Indeed it could be both.

The above coverage by print media has touched varieties of issues but they have left substantially many issues plaguing the judiciary.

Corruption is indeed a cancer that has affected the very vitals of our governance, singling out judiciary in the NCERT text book is clearly unfair. The lesson should have written about corruption in general and how it has entered all departments of government and ruined the life of aam aadmi in particular. There are enough and scores of stories of financial wrong doing across our national life. Students should be exposed to it early, but not so early in 8th standard. 10th could have been the place where introductory details could have been provided to go further in P.U.C, they could have been provided with all details with many stories of actual bungling in public space. That could have been education with a purpose. The apex court bench and CJI Surya Kant missed an opportunity to view the lesson objectively and could have directed the NCERT to attempt comprehensive education of students of both high school and Pre University Colleges. It’s sad, it didn’t happen. CJI Surya Kant got carried with his bias and lost the opportunity which he got almost on a platter.

Of course, the suspicion and allegation that the incumbent government itself was responsible for this 8th std publication could be valid and media must investigate it.

However, while we are about it, the subject of corruption needs to be taken head on, its prevalence or the solution if any, is possible. Students are the best to learn about it as they enter the world of grownups.

Now coming to the corruption and other issues in judiciary it need to be elaborated to make a case for CJI SK to open his mind fully and not keep it ajar selectively.

It was in May 2025, I&C had carried a story in its Month-in-perspective. The title of the story was “Burning cash & Justice Varma”. The write-up was a detailed account of 15crore cash found in his outhouse while it was being doused of fire that engulfed it in April 2025. Justice Surya Kant is in apex court since May 24, 2019, therefore he is fully aware of Justice Varma case. Since SC had appointed a 3 member committee to investigate Justice Varma case in May 2025. Despite this firsthand knowledge of Justice Varma’s note-burning episode, for CJI/SK to rant about the integrity of judiciary, to put it bluntly ‘is a joke’. What was reprehensible then was the highest adjudicator of the land took the matter of Justice Verma as a prestige issue and got him transferred to Allahabad HC, where HC Bar protested this transfer saying AHC ‘is not a trash bin’. At best SC could have asked Justice Verma to go on leave for the matter to be sorted out. We need not go further to prove corruption in judiciary, since it’s not the only problem. However, it is to the credit of apex court that belatedly it accepted that its order was not intended to prevent any healthy and objective criticism of institutional function of the judiciary.

Now we can talk about other issues plaguing the judiciary, like ‘massive backlog’ as mentioned in the text book, is estimated to exceed 53 million as mentioned in the public space. So it’s there for all to see but CJI-SK is silent on this humongous backlog in the entire judicial system. Reportedly there are some 8,000,000 that is 8 million pending cases, in higher courts including SC.

This should have deeply disturbed the CJI, but didn’t. Its here that courts must work to make the life of litigants better who are waiting for years and years without hope of the last word on their case. Another issue that should have rattled judiciary was the disclosure in Loksabha that 78% HC judges appointed in 2018 belong to upper castes. This anomaly has been happening since the HC collegium took over the recommendatory power to appoint judges. With 78% upper caste, OBC at 12%, minorities and SC/ST at 5% each indicating 4/5th of the judges from upper caste and only 1/5 to OBC, ST, SC & minorities. That’s a sad picture in the year of Amrut Kaal of welfare oriented free India as enshrined in the Direction Principles of State Policy. This too should have disturbed CJI SK, but didn’t. Then there is one more case of Justice Dilip Bhosale, a former CJI of Allahabad HC retired in 2018. He also happens to be the son of former Maharashtra Chief Minister Babasaheb Bhosale. He was judge at Bombay HC, Karnataka HC and Hyderabad HC between 2001 and 2016, when he was elevated as Chief Justice of Allahabad HC. There was this Badlapur outside Mumbai Child Assault case of Aug 2024. The accused Akshay Shinde was shot in an encounter with police. Maharashtra government appointed a one man commission to go into the police encounter killing. This Justice Dilip Bhosale was made the chairman of this one man commission. Interestingly the same judge was also the chairman of a commission going into the Ghaatkoper Hoarding collapse case of May 2024. So he is the chairman of two commissions at the same time, as if there is shortage of judges for these commissions. Interestingly, according to media report this Justice Dilip Bhosale was getting Rs 7 lakh as monthly honorarium for Badlapur case besides there could be honorarium to Ghatkoper Hoarding case as well. SO how much a retired judge takes home as honorarium? Do you hearken CJI SK!

Strange but true. A policeman Pradip Singh Thakur was arrested in 2001 for killing his pregnant wife by strangulation. Session Court in Mumbai gives him death sentence. He appeals to High Court which makes it Life imprisonment-26 years in prison. After 22 years in prison Thakur appeals for remission in High Court. Nagpur Bench of Bombay HC thinks the crime is not exceptionally brutal. Strange but true. It has to be appreciated that this was double murder, wife and her fetus growing in her tummy. So for Nagpur bench of BHC to think its not exceptionally brutal and violent, it needs a different standard. This is an issue CJI SK can be truly disturbed unlike that silly lesson in 8th std book.

Way back in Dec 2025, CJI SK had publicly acknowledged about the large pending cases across judiciary and that it needs to be addressed. Here it is best to appreciate that all stake holders have contributed to this mess. It is an important issue for the CJI to think and deliberate and not lose his cool on passing reference on corruption in judiciary. Their short sitting, summer breaks, holidays, all need to have a relook.

Another story ‘Slow justice killed TTE’, reflects the true rot in judiciary. In 1988, a TTE, Travelling Ticket Examiner was charged with taking Rs 50/- as bribe. In 1996, he was terminated after departmental enquiry which took 8 years. In 2002, after 6 years of dismissal, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed Railways to reinstate the TTE, but sadly the railway had all the time and resource to challenge a TTE’s reemployment. This is the priority of government agencies. Bombay High Court (BHC) too took another 15 long years to squash CAT order in 2017 and upheld dismissal of TTE. In the meanwhile TTE passed away. Family of TTE, took it up with Supreme Court. It took another 8 years. Apex court decided it was a made up case and gave a clean chit to the TTE. But sadly he was not there to experience the joy of clearing his name. It took 37 years for the family to smile at the restoration of TTEs honor and therefore the family honor. CJI SK do you hearken!

Then there are press reports which tell about the kind of rot that exist in the judiciary. “Courts took 41 years to decide wrist-watch smuggling case, SC holds accused guilty but says sending them to jail would be harsh”. It was in Bhuj trial court for 18 years, additional session court for two years, Gujarat HC for 5 years and finally 15 years in Supreme Court. Crime attracted a punishment of few years, and accused were already in their late 70s…

“Custodial torture: Ex-DGP acquitted after 50 years”. DGP had remained convicted for 23 years.

BBC reported: “Why it took 42 years to convict a 90 year old in India”! In Dec 1981 crime took place.

“Court cleared 44 years old crime when man turned 100”, datelined Prayagraj. Dhani Ram lived long enough under the shadow of a pending appeal to see his freedom restored in his 100th year, is a story of an indictment of a system that moved slower than time itself.

“Airstrip was ‘sold’ & case dragged for 30 years”, datelined New Delhi. This was a reminder of days of “Mohan Joshi Hazir Ho!” a comical satire takes on the system where decisions are kept pending for decades.

“Bribery of Rs 20/- took 30 years to clear” datelined Ahmedabad. The 64years old Gujarat police constable died a day after Gujarat High Court acquitted him of in a case that dragged for 3 decades on charges of taking Rs: 20/- from a truck driver.

There are any number of such cases which can be joked about the way judiciary is functioning.

These are the issues CJI SK should be disturbed and feel ashamed and not get worked up on some lesson in a 8th standard book!