The Bleeding Institution: Why the CJI Feared a School Textbook

 

"The judiciary is bleeding; a gunshot has been fired at the institution. This is a calculated, deep-rooted conspiracy to defame the highest temple of justice in the minds of the future generation. I will not allow this institution to be compromised. Heads must roll for this 'oversight'." --Hearing such intense words from the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is truly striking. The primary role of the judiciary is to deliver justice, not to display anger. However, when such a defensive and sharp reaction occurs, it indicates that a very sensitive nerve has been touched.

On February 25-26, 2026, CJI Surya Kant took suo motu notice regarding a chapter in the new NCERT Class 8 Social Science book titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society.” The chapter highlighted “corruption at various levels of the judiciary,” massive backlogs (over 5 crore pending cases), a shortage of judges, and a lack of internal accountability. The CJI termed this a “calculated, deep-rooted conspiracy to defame the institution.” The fallout was immediate: a blanket ban on the book's reprint and digital circulation, orders to seize physical copies, and contempt notices issued to the NCERT Director and the School Education Secretary. The CJI’s remark that “heads must roll” for this oversight led to an unconditional apology from NCERT, which withdrew the content, promising to replace it with “inspirational material.”

The question remains: What is so deeply hidden that it triggered such an extreme reaction? Let’s examine three hidden layers often excluded from public debate:

The “Uncle Judge” Syndicate (The Shadow of the Collegium)

In India, judges appoint judges through the Collegium System (CJI + 4 senior-most judges). This system is often criticized for its lack of transparency and the “Uncle Judge Syndrome” or nepotism. Historical data suggests that a significant number of judges (up to ~38% in some reports) have family ties within the judiciary or politics.

Obviously, If 13-year-olds are taught about “judicial corruption,” they will inevitably ask: “Are appointments based purely on merit, or has it become a family business?” Such questions challenge the very legitimacy of the institution.

Post-Retirement “Settlements” and Favors

This is an “open secret” that isn’t legally classified as corruption but is perceived by the public as favoritism. Many judges, shortly after retirement, are appointed as chairpersons of government committees, given tribunal posts, or awarded Rajya Sabha seats.

In this situation, decisions made today can create an expectation of post-retirement comfort. This invisible influence—often more dangerous than a direct bribe—erodes the system from within.

The “Master of Roster” Game (Case Allocation)

The CJI holds the power of “Master of Roster,” deciding which bench hears which case. Allegations of assigning sensitive political cases to “favorable” or lenient judges have persisted for years. In 2018, four senior-most judges held an unprecedented press conference to raise alarms about this internal opacity. Since then, reform has been slow. When NCERT points toward “systemic issues,” it touches upon this internal fixing that the judiciary often hides under the cloak of “judicial dignity.”

Understanding the Psychology: Defense Mechanisms

Statements like “I will not allow this institution to be compromised” or “the judiciary is bleeding” act as a defense mechanism. When an institution feels vulnerable regarding its internal issues (nepotism, delays, trust erosion), it tends to project extreme outward toughness. There is a fear that if the youth start questioning the system now, the "God-like" image of the judiciary will crumble within a decade.

-The Shield: “Contempt of Court” becomes the ultimate shield to silence criticism. The NCERT chapter was seen as a breach in this protective armor.

A Valid Counter-Point

It is worth noting that introducing the concept of “corruption” so bluntly to 8th-grade students (ages 12-14) might be considered heavy-handed. At that age, education should focus on the positive pillars of the judiciary—independence, PILs, and the protection of the Constitution. While facts like backlogs and judge shortages are essential, a purely negative bullet-point approach can be seen as age-inappropriate. A more constructive framing would have been: “The judiciary is a strong pillar, but it requires reforms like fast-track courts and transparency.”

The Bottom Line

Corruption exists in all sectors, including the judiciary. Removing a chapter does not erase reality. Former judges themselves have spoken about misconduct and the decline in public trust. Hiding the truth creates the impression of a cover-up, whereas acknowledging and improving the system builds genuine trust.

What we need are systemic reforms

A transparent collegium, more judges, AI for case management, and strict regulations on post-retirement jobs. Only then can we ensure “Blind Justice,” where the ruling party and the opposition are held to the same standard.

Conclusion

Whether the statement was a formal 'I will not allow the institution to be defamed' or the more aggressive perception of 'I won't spare anyone,' the result remains the same: An atmosphere of fear where criticism is treated as a crime.

Justice delayed is justice denied. We should teach the truth to the younger generation, but in a constructive way that highlights both problems and solutions. The judiciary must learn to handle criticism through dialogue rather than bans. If children are not made aware of challenges like nepotism and influence today, they will never know how to reform them tomorrow.