The NCERT Rewrite: A Shift in Focus from Accountability to Institutionalism

The recent revisions to the Class 8 Social Science textbook by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) have sparked debate over the portrayal of the judiciary in India. The controversy began after the book’s release in February, leading to significant changes in Chapter 4, “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society.” The revisions are not merely cosmetic; they represent a fundamental shift from critiquing institutional shortcomings to extolling the virtues of constitutional structure.

Critics had targeted the original chapter for its stark portrayal of corruption within the judiciary. While the revised version still acknowledges the importance of justice and access to it, the tone has changed dramatically. References to “corruption” and “massive backlog” have been replaced with broad questions about the concept of justice and the structure of the judiciary in India.

This shift suggests a desire to downplay institutional problems that have plagued the Indian judiciary for years. The Supreme Court’s suo motu cognizance and subsequent directives suggest there was merit to the original critique. By excising critical passages and inserting more benign language, NCERT may be perpetuating a culture of impunity within the judiciary.

The revised chapter introduces new concepts, such as writ jurisdiction and public interest litigation (PIL). However, these additions come across as hasty attempts to shore up the image of the judiciary. The inclusion of examples like the Hussainara Khatoon case and M C Mehta’s environmental litigation is laudable but seems tokenistic in light of more substantial revisions.

The emphasis on digital technology and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms may be seen as an attempt to distract from core issues. While e-filing and hybrid hearings have streamlined judicial processes, they do not address underlying problems of corruption and backlog. Similarly, the inclusion of tribunals like NCLT and NGT showcases the judiciary’s efforts to reduce its burden but does little to mitigate perception of institutional failures.

The controversy extends beyond the textbook itself. The Supreme Court’s directive to disassociate three academics associated with the chapter has raised questions about academic freedom and the role of public intellectuals in shaping educational curricula. While the Centre’s decision not to associate them with future NCERT work may be seen as necessary, it underscores challenges faced by those who dare to critique institutional power.

This controversy serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle between accountability and institutionalism in Indian society. The revised chapter has shifted its focus from scrutiny to celebration but does little to address pressing issues that require attention. As students begin to learn from these revised texts, one hopes they will also ask questions about context, implications, and potential consequences of this rewriting. The future of India’s judiciary depends on our ability to engage in open discussions, unafraid to confront its shortcomings head-on.