Justice Surya Kant -Chief Justice of India
“I will take up the matter suo motu. I will not allow anybody to defame the institution. Law will take its course.”
THE LEGAL battle over institutional self-defense has now entered India’s classrooms. In a move that unsettled educators and academic circles alike, the Supreme Court recently blacklisted authors and penalized educational material—including NCERT-level content—that critically referenced judicial corruption and the massive backlog of pending cases. Reinforcing this approach, the apex court also rejected pleas seeking relaxed hate speech scrutiny, signaling that broad institutional criticism under the guise of academic freedom would not be tolerated.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
YOU CANNOT CURE A FEVER BY BREAKING THE THERMOMETER
When millions of cases remain unresolved for years— sometimes decades—judicial backlog ceases to be an abstract academic concern. It becomes a lived national reality that students, citizens, and institutions alike cannot simply be asked to ignore.
This raises a serious constitutional question: Where does legitimate public accountability end, and when does protecting the “majesty of the court” become censorship?
To understand the judiciary’s defensive posture, one must recognize the fragile nature of judicial authority. Unlike the executive, courts command no army; unlike the legislature, they control no treasury. Their power rests almost entirely on public trust.
From the bench’s perspective, textbooks portraying the legal system as endlessly delayed or structurally compromised may not encourage critical thinking, but public cynicism. If young citizens lose faith in the judiciary before they are even old enough to vote, the rule of law itself risks weakening. Seen this way, sweeping criticism of judicial integrity becomes more than academic commentary—it becomes a challenge to institutional legitimacy.
Yet critics argue that suppressing discussions of judicial backlog amounts to censoring reality itself. “You cannot cure a fever by breaking the thermometer,” civil liberties advocates insist. When millions of cases remain unresolved for decades, backlog is no longer a theoretical issue; it is a lived national reality.
Scholars and educators further contend that contempt powers were created to prevent obstruction of justice, not to shield institutions from uncomfortable facts. Once academic criticism is labeled “systemic vilification,” the danger is obvious: only praise may remain legally safe.
At the heart of this debate lies the democratic tension between public accountability and institutional integrity—the right to question failures versus the need to preserve trust in constitutional institutions.
The irony becomes sharper with the Supreme Court’s recent unveiling of a redesigned Nyay Devi, the Indian goddess of justice, without the traditional colonial blindfold. The symbolism was powerful: Indian justice is no longer blind to social realities.
Yet the contradiction is difficult to ignore. The institution appears willing to see society’s realities, but increasingly uncomfortable when citizens openly discuss them.
True judicial majesty is not protected through blacklists, syllabus edits, or intellectual intimidation. It is earned through transparency, efficiency, accountability, and the willingness to confront systemic shortcomings openly. If justice no longer needs a blindfold, perhaps its critics should not require a gag order either.
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.