The recent intervention of the Supreme Court of India over a Class 8 Social Science textbook issued by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has sparked a debate that extends far beyond a contested line in a civics chapter. The reference to "corruption in the judiciary" prompted a Bench led by the Chief Justice of India to question whether such phrasing was appropriate for middle school students and whether it risked undermining confidence in a constitutional institution.
Predictably, the responses have been polarised. One camp sees the Court's concern as a legitimate effort to safeguard institutional dignity. Another views it as judicial overreach into academic space. Both positions miss the larger constitutional moment. The issue is not about silencing criticism or sanitising reality. It is about how a democracy introduces complexity to young citizens.
In India's constitutional design, the judiciary occupies a distinct place. Through doctrines such as the basic structure principle articulated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court has positioned itself as the guardian of constitutional identity. Unlike the executive or legislature, courts command neither the purse nor the sword. Their authority rests on legitimacy and public confidence.
It is, therefore, understandable that the Court would be sensitive to how it is portrayed in school textbooks. Early adolescence is a formative stage. Civic impressions acquired at thirteen often endure for decades.
Yet, democracies cannot thrive on curated innocence. Young Indians are not insulated from public debate. They witness high-profile controversies, hear discussions on case backlogs, and see media scrutiny of institutions. If textbooks omit real challenges, they risk appearing disconnected from lived reality.
The real question, then, is one of pedagogy. How should flaws be framed?
Language matters. A phrase like "corruption in the judiciary" can suggest isolated wrongdoing or systemic decay. Adults may infer nuance. Adolescents may not. The danger is not rebellion but premature cynicism. If foundational trust erodes before civic maturity develops, disengagement can follow.
Trust and transparency are not opposites. In fact, accountability mechanisms strengthen institutional legitimacy. Teaching students about impeachment provisions, ethical codes, judicial review and appellate correction demonstrates that the system contains self-correcting features. Framing challenges within reform narratives cultivates informed trust rather than blind faith.
At the same time, academic autonomy deserves respect. Curriculum design is primarily the domain of educators and scholars. Courts must tread carefully when engaging with educational content. The ideal path is collaborative rather than adversarial. Structured consultation between curriculum experts, constitutional scholars, and child psychologists can help ensure age-appropriate accuracy without compromising integrity.
This episode offers NCERT an opportunity. Civic education can be staged progressively. At the middle school level, emphasis can remain on constitutional structure, values, and accountability mechanisms. At the secondary stage, case studies of reform and controversy may be introduced. Senior secondary classrooms can host deeper analytical debates on judicial activism, transparency, and institutional critique.
Such tiered learning respects developmental capacity while preserving intellectual honesty.
India's constitutional journey has been marked by landmark judgments expanding rights as well as legitimate criticism over delays and infrastructure deficits. Both truths coexist. The art of civic education lies in presenting them proportionately and progressively.
Democracy depends on two pillars: accountability and legitimacy. Education must nurture both. If this controversy results in more thoughtful curriculum design and deeper institutional dialogue, it may ultimately strengthen constitutional culture.
The classroom is where civic character is shaped. Teaching trust and teaching truth need not be competing goals. When balanced carefully, they become complementary lessons in sustaining the Republic.
(The author is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
