SC Bans Class 8 Textbook: Contempt Powers, Academic Freedom and Constitutional Boundaries

Why in News? / Context

• The Supreme Court of India imposed a blanket and complete ban on an NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook, ordering seizure of all physical and digital copies.
• A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant initiated suo motu contempt proceedings, describing the content as a “calculated” attempt to malign the judiciary.
• The Court held that selective references to “corruption in judiciary” could instil institutional distrust in “impressionable minds”, affecting long-term public confidence in constitutional governance.

Constitutional and Legal Background

Nature and Position of the Supreme Court

• Established under Article 124, the Supreme Court is the apex judicial authority, guardian of the Constitution, and final interpreter of fundamental rights and federal disputes.
• Under Article 141, law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts; under Article 144, all authorities must act in aid of the Court.
• Judicial independence is part of the Basic Structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973), making protection of institutional credibility constitutionally significant.

Contempt of Court: Constitutional Basis

• Article 129 declares the Supreme Court a Court of Record with power to punish for contempt of itself; High Courts derive similar power under Article 215.
• Contempt power protects administration of justice from obstruction, scandalisation, or interference, preserving authority of courts.
• The power is inherent and not merely statutory; Parliament regulates it through the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Key Provisions

• Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of court orders.
• Criminal Contempt: Publication that scandalises or lowers authority of court, prejudices judicial proceedings, or obstructs administration of justice.
• Section 13 (Amended 2006): Truth as a valid defence if in public interest and bona fide.
• The doctrine of “scandalising the court” remains controversial due to its potential chilling effect on criticism.

Freedom of Speech and Reasonable Restrictions

• Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including academic discourse and institutional critique.
• Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions in interests of contempt of court, public order, defamation, and sovereignty.
• Judicial precedents (e.g., Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of UP, 1953) distinguish fair criticism from malicious attack undermining institutional integrity.

Education Governance and NCERT

• NCERT, established in 1961, functions as an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education, responsible for curriculum frameworks and textbook preparation.
• Education is in the Concurrent List (Entry 25, List III) after the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, allowing both Union and States to legislate.
• National Curriculum Frameworks periodically guide textbook content; however, editorial autonomy operates within constitutional limitations.

Doctrinal and Institutional Dimensions

Separation of Powers

• Judiciary safeguards constitutional supremacy; executive oversees education policy; legislature frames statutory framework.
• Judicial intervention in curriculum reflects assertion of institutional protection but raises concerns regarding potential overreach into academic domains.

Judicial Accountability vs Judicial Independence

• Democratic theory permits scrutiny of institutions; however, institutional erosion through selective portrayal may weaken rule of law foundations.
• The judiciary has historically tolerated reasoned criticism but penalised malicious attempts undermining authority (Arundhati Roy Contempt Case, 2002).

Democratic and Governance Implications

• Public trust in judiciary is crucial for enforcement of contracts, fundamental rights, and constitutional remedies under Article 32.
• A narrative of systemic judicial corruption, if uncontextualised, may weaken institutional legitimacy among youth.
• Simultaneously, excessive restriction of academic discourse risks narrowing space for informed civic education and constitutional literacy.

Challenges

• Definitional Ambiguity: Scope of “scandalising the court” under criminal contempt remains broad, potentially discouraging academic examination of judicial accountability mechanisms.
• Editorial Oversight Gaps: Absence of structured constitutional vetting in NCERT textbook review processes exposes curriculum to ideological or institutional controversy.
• Digital Enforcement Practicality: Order to seize all digital copies faces technological challenges due to replication, downloads, and archival persistence.
• Balancing Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2): Determining proportionality of blanket ban requires strict scrutiny under evolving free speech jurisprudence.
• Institutional Sensitivity vs Transparency: Protecting judicial dignity must not suppress discussion of reforms like judicial appointments, impeachment provisions under Article 124(4), or anti-corruption safeguards.

Way Forward

• Establish Constitutional Review Panel within NCERT including retired judges and constitutional scholars for vetting sensitive institutional topics.
• Codify Clear Pedagogical Standards distinguishing systemic institutional critique from individual allegations, ensuring balanced civic education.
• Refine Contempt Jurisprudence through larger Bench clarification on limits of “scandalising the court”, aligning with proportionality doctrine.
• Enhance Judicial Transparency by strengthening disclosure norms, performance data publication, and grievance redressal mechanisms to reduce mistrust.
• Promote Constitutional Literacy Programs integrating balanced modules on separation of powers, checks and balances, and accountability frameworks.

Prelims Pointers

• Article 129 & 215: Contempt powers of Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Defines civil and criminal contempt.
• Entry 25, Concurrent List: Education under joint legislative competence.
• Article 19(2): Reasonable restrictions including contempt of court.

---