5 min readMar 19, 2026 06:15 AM IST First published on: Mar 19, 2026 at 06:15 AM ISTLord Atkin, a renowned British judge, famously observed that “justice is not a cloistered virtue. She must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny… and outspoken comments of ordinary men.” This observation gives the critics a free run. However, our Supreme Court (SC) feels the critics cannot run amuck and must bear in mind that the criticism has to be objective, genuine, and not aimed at tarnishing the image of an individual or institution.The context is the controversy regarding the contents of a Class 8 Social Science textbook created and approved by NCERT. The chapter “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society” contains references to judicial corruption and a massive backlog of cases. Taking suo motu cognisance, an SC bench headed by the CJI described the text as a calculated move to undermine the judiciary. He reportedly said, “I will not allow anyone on Earth to taint the integrity and defame the entire institution.” The bench directed NCERT to withdraw all copies of the book in circulation and banned further publication. It also issued contempt notices to the director of NCERT and the secretary of the Department of School Education and Literacy. NCERT’s role in these offending references and the SC’s sharp reaction has triggered a debate: Did NCERT cross a red line or was this judicial overreach?AdvertisementNCERT’s primary function is to prepare the curriculum for students of Classes 1 to 12, and when it does that, it assumes the role of a teacher. It is expected of a teacher to impart quality education to her pupils and take a holistic view of things. By attempting to paint the judiciary in black hues, ignoring its seminal contribution in protecting the Constitution and the rule of law, NCERT was not only running down the judiciary as an institution but also doing a disservice to young minds. One would wish that NCERT had highlighted not only the judiciary’s negative side but also its many positives.The judiciary is a pillar of our democracy. And we can proudly say it has served citizens well. It has to its credit many landmark judgments that have gone a long way in keeping our Constitution’s spirit alive, like Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, which held that Parliament cannot alter or destroy the Constitution’s foundational features — democracy, secularism, federalism, and the rule of law. Had it not done so, we would have seen governments successfully tinkering with the Constitution’s basic structure.It is the judiciary that has given us the gift of public interest litigation. Today, any citizen can move the higher courts for a public cause and demand public accountability from the authorities. It started with the SC taking cognisance of a newspaper report describing the appalling condition of prisoners languishing in Bihar jails without trial, notwithstanding the fact that they had already undergone the maximum sentence for the crimes they had allegedly committed. Treating the report as a writ petition, it directed the release of nearly 40,000 prisoners and gave a go-by to the locus standi rule, where only the aggrieved person could approach a High Court or the SC for justice. It is the judiciary that, through various pronouncements, has given an expansive definition to Article 21, which guarantees to every person the right to life and personal liberty, so as to include in its sweep the right to live with dignity rather than mere existence.AdvertisementThis should not be taken to mean that the judiciary is a paragon of virtue. It has its failings, too. Its judgment in ADM Jabalpur — holding that when an Emergency is in operation, the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 would stand suspended — is still etched in the minds of the people. There is a growing feeling that while the rich and powerful have easy access to justice, the poor and marginalised rot in jail endlessly, waiting to be heard. While Ashish Mishra — accused in the deaths of eight people in Lakhimpur Kheri — gets bail, Umar Khalid is condemned to the prison’s four walls, even though he has spent more than five years in custody without trial. Corruption in the judiciary is not hidden from anyone: Not long ago, wads of burnt currency notes were found at the house of an HC judge. Certainly, the judiciary needs to make a course correction in a big way. One hopes the SC, while acting to protect the judiciary’s honour, keeps in mind that at times, it too has failed the Constitution, and that where and when it so fails, the citizen has a right to say so, sometimes in whispers and at times loudly.The writer is a former judge of the Delhi High Court