The judiciary is not, and cannot be, averse to criticism, the Supreme Court has said while cautioning that such criticism be voiced through the appropriate forum and in a fair, rational mechanism.
Editorial | Selective outrage: on Supreme Court and NCERT textbook The Supreme Court took note that the controversial chapter has been replaced based on the revisions suggested by an expert panel constituted by the Centre.
The Supreme Court said the distinction lies not between criticism and silence, but between responsible discourse and uninformed assertion.
The Supreme Court had earlier modified its March 11 order that had directed the Centre, States and others to disassociate from three academicians following a row over the controversial chapter on corruption in the judiciary. The Supreme Court, which considered the explanation given by the three academicians, had left it open to the Centre, States, Union Territories, public universities and institutions that receive funds from the Central or State governments to take an independent decision on the issue without being influenced by its observations made in the March 11 order.
The Bench was hearing a suo motu case concerning NCERT’s Class 8 social science book, which contained “offending” content on corruption in the judiciary. The Bench had passed the order while hearing an application filed by the three academicians, who explained their stand and said that no individual had the sole say in the drafting of the content and it was a collective process.
