John J. Kennedy | Amidst NCERT Row: Respect All Institutions, Not Silence Criticism

The controversy surrounding the inclusion of a chapter on corruption in the judiciary in a National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbook is rapidly turning into a national debate about the nature of civic education in India. What began as a disagreement over textbook content has now acquired institutional and political overtones. The Supreme Court has banned the textbook and directed the Centre, state governments and publicly funded institutions to dissociate Prof, Michel Denino and two associates involved in preparing the material from any curriculum or textbook development work.

Meanwhile, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan has publicly stated that he read the entire chapter and found it balanced and factually grounded.

Amid the exchange of sharp statements, legal directives and political reactions, it may be useful to step back and examine the issue more calmly. Beyond the immediate controversy lies a deeper question: how should a democracy educate its young citizens about the institutions that govern them? Should civic education present only the strengths of institutions, or should it also acknowledge their weaknesses? Should students be shielded from uncomfortable realities, or should they be encouraged to understand the complexities of democratic governance? If so, how?

At first glance, the Supreme Court’s response may appear quite understandable. The judiciary holds a special place in India’s constitutional system as the guardian of fundamental rights and the final interpreter of the Constitution. Because public trust is central to its authority, judges may worry that any discussion of judicial corruption, especially in school textbooks, could weaken confidence in the institution.

However, the way the controversy has been handled raises concerns. Halting the chapter’s circulation and effectively blacklisting the experts involved appears excessive. While protecting institutional dignity is legitimate, such a response appears overly restrictive and defensive, particularly for a judiciary long regarded as a defender of free speech and open debate. It also raises a broader constitutional issue. Blanket restrictions on free speech are viewed with suspicion in all democracies. Stopping discussion before it reaches the public (what scholars call “prior restraint”) is often considered more troubling than addressing concerns after publication.

Besides, there is the question of proportionality. Even if the aim is to protect institutional reputation, a complete ban is an extreme step. If the chapter contained inaccuracies or lacked context, revisions or expert review could have addressed the concerns without silencing discussion altogether.

The controversy has also unfolded against the backdrop of a wider debate over school textbooks in recent years. Several revisions and deletions in NCERT textbooks, particularly in subjects such as history and political science, have already raised concerns about the direction of civic education in India. In this context, removing discussions of institutional shortcomings reinforces the perception that textbooks are increasingly avoiding difficult conversations about public institutions.

However, the most important issue concerns the purpose of civic education itself. Democracies rely on citizens who are able to understand how institutions function, not only in theory but also in practice.

If textbooks present institutions as flawless, students may grow up with an idealised picture of governance. When reality inevitably proves more complicated, disillusionment may follow. In contrast, a carefully balanced discussion of institutional challenges can encourage a more mature and realistic understanding of democracy.

In this regard, a balanced approach would involve three key elements. First, any discussion of judicial corruption must be embedded within a larger explanation of how the judiciary functions, its constitutional safeguards, and its historical contributions. Students should understand the doctrine of separation of powers, the role of judicial review, and the mechanisms designed to ensure judicial accountability. When corruption cases are mentioned, they should be presented as deviations from constitutional ideals rather than defining characteristics of the institution.

Second, textbooks must clearly distinguish between systemic critique and sensationalism. A few high-profile cases cannot be extrapolated into sweeping generalisations about an entire institution. Instead, students can be introduced to the concept of institutional design -- how systems create checks and balances, and how those checks sometimes fail. By examining both successes and shortcomings, learners develop analytical skills rather than emotional reactions.

This approach treats students as thinking individuals capable of nuance, not passive recipients of simplified narratives.

Third, civic education should encourage constructive engagement. If students learn about corruption, they should also learn about reform efforts, legal remedies and citizen action.

Discussions may include how transparency laws, internal oversight mechanisms, and public interest litigation have addressed institutional lapses. In this way, the narrative moves beyond exposing flaws to exploring the processes of democratic self-correction. The underlying message becomes clear: institutions are human creations; imperfect, yet capable of reform.

From a constitutional perspective, the solution lies not in erasing such discussions but in refining them. If a chapter lacks balance or context, revision and expert review would be more proportionate than a sweeping ban. Democracies derive legitimacy not from avoiding criticism but from the ability to confront it.

The controversy also reveals a deeper tension in Indian public life between pride and introspection. Calling India the “mother of all democracies” reflects civilisational confidence.

Yet democratic maturity lies not in claiming perfection but in openly examining shortcomings.

The sensible path lies between two extremes. It is neither wise to ban discussions of judicial corruption nor to present them in ways that delegitimise the judiciary. Instead, textbooks should adopt a balanced and contextual approach that encourages informed respect for institutions without discouraging critical thought. If India really aspires to be a robust and confident democracy, classrooms must allow thoughtful engagement with institutional realities. Civic education should indeed prepare students to understand and strengthen the democratic institutions that they have inherited.