Trust is the bedrock of justice and education must protect it
Somewhere in a classroom in Lucknow, Bhopal or Coimbatore, a Class 8 student has just finished reading a chapter on the Indian judiciary. They now know about case backlogs, about corruption, about disputes that drag on for decades. What they may not fully know, because the emphasis did not rest there, is what courts in India have built, protected and preserved over seventy-five years of constitutional democracy. That gap between what was highlighted and what was underplayed has now become the subject of serious judicial scrutiny.
The Supreme Court of India did not wait for a formal petition In. ReSocial Science Textbook for Grade-8 (Part 2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues, it acted on its own motion, banning the Class 8 Social Science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), ordering physical copies to be seized and digital versions to be withdrawn, and seeking accountability from those involved in drafting the chapter. The Court even observed that if the framing amounted to a deliberate attempt to scandalise the institution, the law of contempt could come into play.
The chapter reportedly began with familiar constitutional ground, the Preamble’s promise of justice and the importance of judicial independence. But when it turned to “challenges,” it leaned heavily on the phrase “justice delayed is justice denied,” cited pendency figures, and referred to corruption within the judiciary. Backlogs and complaints were foregrounded; structural reasons such as judicial vacancies, infrastructure deficits and the State’s role as the largest litigant received comparatively brief treatment.
The problem was not that challenges were mentioned; democracies must confront their imperfections honestly. The difficulty lies in the imbalance. Raising concerns without adequate context risks creating a first impression that lingers long after the page is turned.
Courts do not command obedience through force. Alexander Hamilton famously described the judiciary as possessing “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” Its authority rests on public confidence. John Locke argued that institutions endure only as long as the people accept their legitimacy; courts are no different. Remove trust, and the institution becomes symbolic rather than functional.
Indian constitutional thought echoes this reality. Dr BR Ambedkar warned that constitutional morality must be cultivated; it cannot be assumed. Justice VR Krishna Iyer repeatedly emphasised that justice must be accessible to the common person, not confined to legal theory. When a fourteen-year-old first encounters the judiciary primarily through references to delay and corruption, the impression formed may shape their civic outlook for years.
Corruption, where it occurs, is a human failing; it is not an institutional identity. A judge who errs commits a personal moral breach, yet the constitutional design of the court remains intact. No institution composed of human beings is immune from individual misconduct; however, the Indian judiciary has expanded fundamental rights, pioneered public interest litigation, struck down unconstitutional laws and held Governments accountable. It has often stood as the last refuge for the powerless.
The experience of countries such as Poland and Hungary offers a cautionary tale. Judicial authority there was not dismantled overnight; it was gradually weakened through sustained narratives that portrayed courts as inefficient, compromised or elitist. Once public confidence thinned, institutional independence became easier to erode; rebuilding trust proved far harder than questioning it.
None of this means that criticism should be suppressed. Scrutiny is the lifeblood of democracy; however, there is a difference between acknowledging flaws and defining an institution by them. Young readers deserve a full picture, one that recognises backlogs and reforms, shortcomings and safeguards, errors and achievements.
Trust does not arise automatically; it is built slowly, often beginning in classrooms. Civic education carries the responsibility of informing without distorting and questioning without undermining foundational confidence. Courts function because citizens believe in their legitimacy; that belief is fragile. If we want future generations to respect the rule of law, we must ensure that their first lessons about the judiciary are balanced, contextual and complete. Justice depends not only on judgments delivered in courtrooms, but also on trust nurtured in schools.
The writer is an Advocate; Views presented are personal.
