Can an institution demand total respect if it refuses to answer questions? Chief Justice of India Surya Kant addressed this exact challenge, declaring that the judiciary cannot earn the confidence of citizens by shielding itself from scrutiny. His remarks remind us that true authority comes from openness rather than secrecy.
The Chief Justice on Scrutiny and Public Faith
Speaking at the sixth Ram Jethmalani Memorial Lecture in New Delhi, Chief Justice Surya Kant made a clear statement about institutional integrity. He remarked that a court cannot expect public trust if it places itself beyond critique. Instead, the legal system must remain willing to be examined, questioned, and criticised when necessary.
Addressing senior advocates, legal scholars, and citizens, the CJI underlined that public confidence is not automatic. It must be cultivated every day through fair hearings and open conduct. Institutions do not stay clean by hiding their flaws; they stay clean by confronting them directly in the open light of day.
The Context: The NCERT Class 8 Textbook Dispute
To illustrate his point, the Chief Justice recalled the Supreme Court’s recent intervention in a row concerning an NCERT Class 8 social science textbook. That particular textbook had included references to corruption within the judiciary, sparking sharp reactions from the highest court.
During earlier hearings, a Bench led by the CJI had expressed strong disapproval over how the judiciary was portrayed to young students. The court had ordered the withdrawal of the material, calling the depiction reckless, irresponsible, motivated, and contemptuous. The Bench had observed that painting the entire justice system with a broad brush risked instilling early bias in impressionable young minds, firmly remarking at the time that accountability had to be fixed.
By revisiting this controversy during his lecture, the CJI highlighted the delicate balance the legal system must strike. While reckless and generalised attacks on courts harm public faith, legitimate inquiry and constructive criticism remain essential for democratic health.
What The Law Says: Immunity Versus Accountability
In India, judges enjoy legal protections to ensure they can deliver justice without fear of personal lawsuits or harassment from unhappy litigants. However, immunity does not mean absolute freedom from constitutional checks.
- The Judges (Protection) Act, 1985: This law shields judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and district judiciary from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done or words spoken while carrying out official duties. This protection ensures judicial independence.
- Article 124(4) and Article 217 of the Constitution: Higher judiciary judges can only be removed through a rigorous parliamentary impeachment process on grounds of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.
- The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: While the law punishes acts that scandalise the court or lower its authority, Section 5 clearly provides that fair and temperate criticism of a judicial order or judgment does not amount to contempt.
- Article 19(1)(a) vs Article 19(2): Citizens have the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. While contempt of court is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2), healthy analysis of court decisions remains entirely lawful.
The Thin Line Between Fair Criticism and Institutional Harm
Why is this distinction so vital for our democracy? If citizens and researchers cannot question court verdicts, judicial errors might never come to light. Constructive criticism pushes the legal system to evolve, fix procedural delays, and deliver better justice to ordinary people.
At the same time, baseless allegations targeting the integrity of the judicial institution can erode public confidence. If citizens lose faith in the impartiality of courts, the rule of law collapses. The Chief Justice’s remarks emphasize that while malicious smears cannot be tolerated, honest scrutiny must never be treated as an offence.
Why This Matters For You
For law students, young professionals, and every Indian citizen, the Chief Justice’s stance marks a progressive view of justice. It reminds us that courts belong to the public they serve.
When the highest judge in the country welcomes scrutiny, it gives citizens the confidence that the justice system is ready to listen, adapt, and improve. True constitutional strength does not rely on silencing critics, but on delivering judgments that speak for themselves with fairness and transparency.
Story reported by India Latest News: Top National Headlines Today & Breaking News | The Hindu. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
