Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday (September 14, 2026) invoked the Supreme Court’s intervention in the NCERT Class 8 textbook row, where the court had objected to references to ‘judicial corruption’, to emphasise that “institutions do not stay clean by being shielded from scrutiny.”
Earlier in September, however, the court closed the suo motu proceedings after the chapter was replaced with an updated curriculum. It earns trust when the people who lost, who wanted an entirely different result, still walk away believing that the process which decided against them was a fair one. The court had initially ordered the textbook to be withdrawn en masse. “A court does not earn trust by being liked, or by handing out the outcomes people wanted. “It means that the reasoning behind a decision, and not merely its result, can be examined by anyone who cares to look, including the very people the decision goes against.
It had termed the textual depiction of the judiciary as “reckless, irresponsible, motivated, contemptuous” with an intention to instill bias in the “impressionable minds” of young school children. The Bench, which was headed by the CJI, had made stern remarks that “heads must roll”. Chief Justice Kant referred to excerpts from the court order, like “the judiciary, as an institution, is not, and cannot be, averse to criticism”, as “fair, informed and constructive critique of judicial functioning” is “a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy”, contributing to institutional accountability and self-correction. The CJI said that an institution cannot remain by shirking scrutiny and criticism, but by repeatedly surviving exposure. A court cannot seek the confidence of the public by placing itself beyond scrutiny; it must remain willing to be examined, questioned and, where necessary, criticised, the Chief Justice said. That is a far harder thing to earn than approval, and far more valuable,” Chief Justice Kant said. The top judge said transparency, for a court, was not simply a matter of open doors and public hearings. A court that announces its verdicts but keeps its reasoning to itself has not really been transparent, whatever else it may have done,” Chief Justice Kant said.
It had further recalled harsher earlier findings against individual academicians.
