‘Will not allow anyone to defame institution’: CJI takes exception to NCERT’s Class 8 book section on ‘corruption in judiciary’

Earlier, after senior advocates A M Singhvi and Kapil Sibal raised the issue before the bench, the CJI said, “…At any cost I will not permit anyone. Whosoever high it may be, the law must take its own course. And I know how to deal with that.”

Taking up the matter with the bench, and submitting that he was speaking for the Bar, Sibal said, “We are deeply disturbed, Class 8 students being taught that judiciary is corrupt….” Sibal also said he has “got copies of the book” and sought to share them with the bench.

The CJI said, “I can assure all of you. I am fully aware of it.” Sibal then expressed hope that the bench would “take suo motu notice of this matter”. The CJI responded, “Wait for a day.”

Singhvi said “the real problem is not the content, but the selectivity; it was a case of selective portrayal”. The CJI said, “It definitely concerns the entire institution. The Bar and Bench, and every stakeholder in the system is really perturbed after seeing this. I am getting lots of calls, lots of messages…all my brother, sister judges in High Courts, everybody is perturbed. Now that you have mentioned it, I’m therefore mentioning. I have already passed an order, I am taking the matter suo motu.”

Singhvi said the “selectivity is amazing” before adding that “one institution is plucked out as if there is no problem anywhere else”. “Not a word about other sectors, public life, economy, bureaucracy,” he said. Sibal chipped in with “politicians, ministers”, before stating, “We know what it is.”

Justice Bagchi said, “Connecting the Constitutional integrity to basic structure is missing in the structure of this book.”

The CJI said, “Tentatively it seems to be very calculated and deep rooted…But we will not say anything more than that. As head of the institution, I am aware, I am conscious and I have done my duty.”

The book — ‘Exploring Society: India and Beyond’ Part 2 — was released on Monday, and the section on “corruption in the judiciary” is part of a chapter on “The role of the judiciary in our society”.

The Indian Express reported Tuesday that the chapter lists among “challenges” faced by the judicial system “corruption at various levels of the judiciary” and “massive backlog…on account of multiple reasons, such as a lack of an adequate number of judges, complicated legal procedures, and poor infrastructure”.

The section on “corruption in the judiciary” also refers to the internal mechanism to maintain accountability, and an “established procedure for receiving complaints through the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS)”. Over 1,600 such complaints were received between 2017 and 2021, it said.

The section states, “…in cases where the allegations are serious, the Parliament can take action and remove a judge by passing a motion of impeachment. Such a motion is considered only after a proper inquiry, during which the judge is given a fair opportunity to present their side of the case.”

It states, “Nevertheless, people do experience corruption at various levels of the judiciary. For the poor and the disadvantaged, this can worsen the issue of access to justice. Hence, efforts are constantly being made at the State and Union levels to build faith and increase transparency in the judicial system, including through the use of technology, and to take swift and decisive action against instances of corruption wherever they may arise.”

The book also lists the approximate number of pending cases in the Supreme Court (81,000), High Courts (62,40,000), and District and Subordinate Courts (4,70,00,000).

It quotes former CJI B R Gavai as having said in July 2025: “…Sadly, there have been instances of corruption and misconduct that have surfaced even within the judiciary. Such occurrences inevitably have a negative impact on public confidence, potentially eroding faith in the integrity of the system as a whole. However, the path to rebuilding this trust lies in the swift, decisive and transparent action taken to address and resolve these issues… Any erosion of this confidence risks weakening the judiciary’s constitutional role as the ultimate arbiter of rights. Transparency and accountability are democratic virtues.”