New Delhi: The Supreme Court said it welcomes scrutiny and is not
averse to criticism, while closing the suo motu case over the NCERT
Class 8 textbook that referred to corruption in the judiciary.
However, they said teaching children that the judiciary is corrupt is
like sowing seeds of distrust.

"Judges are not saints. We are open to criticism. But when you teach
an 11-year-old that the judiciary is corrupt, you sow seeds of
distrust in the very institution that protects the constitution. That
child will grow up believing courts cannot deliver justice," said the
top court bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V
Mohana.

The order of the top court was uploaded on Thursday on its official website.

"The Judiciary, as an institution, is not, and cannot be, averse to
criticism. 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 SC said.

"What is required, however, is that such criticism be voiced through
the appropriate forum and in a fair, rational mechanism, and not find
its way, without verification, into a school curriculum meant for
impressionable minds," the bench said in its September 1 order, whose
contents were later made available.

The apex court took note that the controversial chapter has been
replaced based on the revisions suggested by an expert panel
constituted by the centre.

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.

Didn't expect row over chapter on judiciary; content was correct, we
stand by it: NCERT scholar Danino

The top 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 apex 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.

It had also recalled a part of the March 11 order that had recorded
that the three academicians -- Professor Michel Danino, Suparna
Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar -- had "deliberately and knowingly"
misrepresented the facts to project a negative image of the Indian
judiciary to Class 8 students.

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.

The court had also observed that its comments were made in the context
of the contents and not the individuals.

On March 11, acting tough against the three experts involved in the
drafting of the controversial chapter in the National Council of
Educational Research and Training's (NCERT) social science book for
Class 8, the court had directed the centre and all states to
disassociate from them.

It had directed the centre to form a committee of domain experts
within a week for the purpose of finalising the curriculum of the
NCERT's legal studies for not only Class 8 but also higher classes.

On February 26, the apex court imposed a "blanket ban" on any further
publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of the NCERT's Class
8 social science textbook that contained the "offending" contents on
corruption in the judiciary, saying they have fired a gunshot and the
judiciary is "bleeding".