NCERT’s New Textbook Highlights Judiciary as Independent Body Amid Prior Controversy

NEW DELHI: In a significant update, the latest NCERT textbook frames the judiciary as an “impartial and independent institution”. This move follows earlier concerns raised by the Supreme Court regarding a section in a Class 8 textbook that alluded to “corruption in the judiciary”.

The Class 9 social science textbook elaborates on the judiciary’s role, stating that it not only safeguards citizens’ rights but also upholds the spirit of the Constitution. Notably, this textbook was prepared prior to the earlier dispute.

Within its pages, the new textbook details the essential functions of the judiciary, which include reviewing executive actions and constitutional amendments, striking down unconstitutional laws, and playing a vital role in promoting and protecting democratic values across all sections of society.

Key Features in the Textbook

In a section termed “Separation of Powers”, under the chapter discussing democracy, it is pointed out that the judiciary takes on public interest litigations (PILs) to ensure access to justice for everyone.

Background of the Controversy

Back in February, the Supreme Court initiated suo motu cognizance of a controversial section found in the Class 8 NCERT social science textbook related to alleged judicial corruption. The bench, spearheaded by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, labeled the issue as a “deep-rooted and well-planned conspiracy to defame judiciary”.

After these remarks, NCERT promptly retracted both the physical and digital copies of the disputed textbook and issued a public apology. The Supreme Court subsequently enforced a “complete blanket ban” on any further publication, reprinting, or digital dissemination of that textbook, deeming it contained “offending” content about corruption within the judiciary.

Moreover, the court imposed a “life ban” on three academicians connected to the textbook’s preparation, prohibiting their involvement in future academic endeavors at government institutions.

However, in a recent development, the court recognized that some of its earlier remarks had been “harsh” and subsequently lifted the lifetime ban imposed on the three involved academicians.