—Arvind Kumar, University of Hertfordshire; Associate Fellow, Institute of Commonwealth Studies; Postdoctoral Research Associate, SOAS, University of London; Shailesh Kumar, Lecturer in Law, Department of Law and Criminology, Royal Holloway, University of London
The Supreme Court of India recently lifted a ban on three academics associated with a controversial National Council of Educational Research & Training (NCERT) class 8 social science textbook, which included a section on judicial corruption, from participating in academic projects linked to public educational institutions. This comes three months after the Court, in an unprecedented decision in a case initiated by itself, had banned the inclusion of the topic ‘Corruption in the Judiciary’ in the textbook titled ‘Exploring Society: India and Beyond’, prepared by NCERT, which is responsible for developing model textbooks, curriculum, and pedagogy for school education in India. This one-page section was a part of its chapter four titled ‘The Role of the Judiciary in our Society’. Surprisingly, it also banned the three academics – Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar – who authored it, from receiving public funds. The lifting of the ban order was passed by a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, while hearing applications filed by the three academics.
The Indian Supreme Court had also directed the union government, state governments, universities, and all institutions to disassociate from these academicians and refrain from engaging them in any publicly funded academic work. This direction did not fall on deaf ears, and while the ban has now been lifted, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court during the hearing that the Union government had already decided not to involve the academics in future projects. The bench also maintained that the textbook chapter was “wholly undesirable”, while accepting the academics’ explanation that the content was prepared collectively and without malicious intent.
As has been argued elsewhere, there is nothing in the book section that could reasonably be called controversial or objectionable – neither any generalisation that the entire judiciary is corrupt, nor any sensational tales of wrongdoing in the courts. The judgment not only has serious implications for teaching, learning, and research on corruption in the Indian judiciary, but also for judicial independence and integrity, as well as the functioning of the Indian democracy. Therefore, this issue requires critical examination.
By situating the Court’s judgment within existing scholarship on corruption in the Indian judiciary, we argue that it has broader implications for academic freedom, the teaching of judicial corruption, and the judiciary’s institutional standing regarding democratic legitimacy. It also invisibilizes corruption in the Indian judiciary. It will further hide what Frank Pearce called, in his ground-breaking book with the same name, ‘Crimes of the Powerful’, particularly in an unelected public institution like the higher judiciary.
Pedagogical suitability or judicial institutional standing?
The Court, in its judgment, has raised a question over the potential impact of teaching judicial corruption within a foundational curriculum on the institutional standing of the judiciary. The Court terms the book reckless, irresponsible, contemptuous, and motivated by a discernible agenda to undermine institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary. It condemns the book for conspicuously omitting the judiciary’s substantive contributions to the preservation of India’s democratic fabric, as well as its role in upholding ‘constitutional morality’ and the doctrine of ‘basic structure’ to protect the Indian Constitution. The judgment further states that ‘the book did not delve into any of the transformative initiatives and measures pioneered by this Court towards overhauling legal aid mechanisms and streamlining the ease of access to justice.’
The Indian Supreme Court justifies its intervention not as an attempt to suppress criticism, but as an effort to safeguard the pedagogical integrity of the national curriculum. It emphasises that ‘young students in their formative years are only beginning to navigate the nuances of public life and the constitutional architecture that sustains it. It is fundamentally improper to expose them to a biased narrative that may engender permanent misconceptions at an age when they lack the discernment to appreciate the manifold and onerous responsibilities that the judiciary discharges on a day-to-day basis.’
Although the above arguments might initially seem sound, none is premised on any evidence. Hence, these simply reflect the judges’ opinions. Academic research, curriculum design, and pedagogy are matters of expert judgment and therefore should not fall within the purview of judicial review. The settled principle worldwide is that a court can review only laws passed by the legislature and executive administrative orders. In the situation we are concerned with, the Supreme Court should preferably have formed an expert committee to examine whether there were any serious concerns regarding the chapter or the relevant section. However, the Court has shown overhastiness, which demonstrates its attempt to silence academic inquiry into judicial corruption.
Invisibilization of Corruption in the Indian Judiciary
The NCERT episode is not the first time the Indian judiciary has intervened to prevent academic work on judicial corruption. According to Professor Subhankar Dam, such intervention has discouraged research on corruption in the Indian judiciary. In his seminal research on corruption in the Indian judiciary titled ‘Why is Judicial Corruption Invisible?’, Dam argues that judicial corruption has become an invisible crime like crimes against humanity, domestic violence, and environmental degradation. Criminological theory identifies seven factors as determinants of the mechanics of criminal invisibility: no knowledge, no statistics, no theory, no research, no control, no politics, and no panic. These features create conditions that keep breaches of criminal law veiled.
According to Dam, the Indian judiciary has specifically invisibilized its corruption through five primary mechanisms: fluid judicial discretion, lack of criminal data, prosecutorial immunity through monopolisation of investigative process, political impunity, and self-censorship by the media and academia. He cites an interesting example from the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, where the then Chief Justice of India, RS Pathak, allegedly used the court’s discretionary power to substantially reduce the Indian government’s compensation claim and, in exchange, absolve the Union Carbide Corporation of all civil and criminal charges. Later, Justice Pathak was appointed as a judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The officials of Union Carbide had indirectly confessed to the role of bribery in reducing compensation. The Indian Supreme Court has done very little to collect data on judicial corruption; as a result, there is a lack of data on allegations of corruption in the judiciary. The Court also has acquired the power to prosecute judges and judicial officers; therefore, anti-corruption agencies cannot investigate judicial corruption. Political parties refrain from discussing corruption in the judiciary, particularly at its higher rungs.
Fear of contempt of court has led the media and academia to self-censor coverage of corruption in the judiciary. This is evident in the fact that the media has only rarely conducted investigative reporting on judges’ and judicial officers’ involvement in corruption. Academics have mostly refrained from researching corruption in the judiciary. The country’s funding agencies have avoided funding research projects on judicial corruption. In fact, for a long time, political science textbooks refrained from including a chapter on the judiciary. Dam argues that this whole phenomenon has created an ‘economy of ignorance’ about corruption in the judiciary. However, recent revelations by former Chief Justices of India and former law ministers about judges’ involvement in corruption, along with the discovery of burnt cash on the premises of Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma, have raised public awareness of corruption in the Indian judiciary.
Such news has begun to break the ‘economy of ignorance’ about judicial corruption, culminating in increasing efforts to study this phenomenon. Such an attempt has also emerged from the growing focus on the study of ‘crimes of the powerful’ to further contribute to Marxist understandings of the complex relations between crime, law, and the state in the reproduction of the capitalist social order, and because judges are classified as ‘powerful’. While the way the Indian Supreme Court dealt with the NCERT episode seems to undermine judicial accountability and warrants fresh research into corruption in the Indian judiciary, it is praiseworthy that the Court finally noted concerns regarding the textbook content should be examined by a high powered expert committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Indu Malhotra, former Attorney General of India K. K. Venugopal, and Vice-Chancellor of Hemavati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University Prakash Singh, rather than by judicial review. The proposal to constitute this committee was made by the Indian Government, and the Court accepted it. The committee is yet to submit its final report. The government has also promised to involve the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal (NJA) – a training institute comprising academicians that trains senior judges in India, in the preparation of school textbook chapters related to the judiciary. However, the latter might increase the judiciary’s oversight of curriculum development and affect academic freedom, as the CJI is the chairperson of NJA’s Academic and Governing Councils and is also entitled to appoint its director. Nonetheless, the way this episode has unfolded might turn academic research on judicial corruption in India into an ‘endangered and emerging subject area of study’, as academics and funding agencies situated in India may feel deterred. However, external funding agencies providing institutional support could serve as an impetus for safe, risk-free research on judicial corruption in India.
Suggested citation: Arvind Kumar and Shailesh Kumar, The Supreme Court of India and Invisibilization of Judicial Corruption, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Jul. 16, 2026, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/the-supreme-court-of-india-and-invisibilization-of-judicial-corruption/