Supreme Court Upholds Right to Criticize Judgments, Dismisses NCERT Textbook Petition

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Right to Criticize Judicial Decisions

The Supreme Court of India has firmly upheld the fundamental right of citizens to express criticism of judicial judgments, while disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought removal of certain textbook content perceived as portraying the judiciary in negative light. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered this significant ruling, marking a clear distinction between legitimate criticism and allegations of corruption.

Textbook Content at the Heart of Legal Debate

PIL petitioner Pankaj Pushkar, who had previously been associated with the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in textbook preparation, brought attention to specific paragraphs in educational materials that continue to be taught despite the court's earlier order to redact controversial references to judicial corruption. The petitioner presented an NCERT textbook containing a paragraph that discusses differing judicial approaches to slum dwellers' rights.

The contentious paragraph stated: "However, there are also court judgments that people believe work against the best interests of the common person. For example, activists who work on issues concerning the right to shelter and housing for the poor believe that the recent judgments on evictions are a far cry from earlier judgments. While recent judgments tend to view the slum dweller as an encroacher in the city, earlier judgments (like the 1985 Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation) had tried to protect the livelihoods of slum dwellers."

—

Judicial Bench Clarifies Position on Criticism

After reading the paragraph aloud in court, the CJI-led bench unequivocally stated that there was nothing objectionable about the content. "This is a viewpoint on the judgment. People have a right to criticise the judgments of the courts. Criticism of judgment does not stand on the same footing as the earlier case (textbook reference to corruption in judiciary)," declared Chief Justice Surya Kant.

The bench elaborated further on this constitutional principle, with the Chief Justice explaining: "In a given case, the court was of the view that people have no right over the land, they are encroachers and hence can be evicted. Other people may say that these people have been living on that piece of land for 10-15 years and hence have a right to live there. That is their perception and it is their viewpoint." The bench added, "If someone says the court's view is erroneous, there is nothing wrong in that."

Government's Response and Review Mechanism

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the courtroom, informed the court that the Central government has already established a high-level panel to review all textbook content related to the judiciary. This panel comprises eminent jurists including former Supreme Court judge Indu Malhotra and former attorney general K.K. Venugopal, who will consult with National Judicial Academy chairperson Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Mehta had previously faced challenges addressing judicial concerns regarding the now-deleted reference to corruption in a Class 8 social science textbook. During the proceedings, Mehta remarked: "Perception which an uninformed person would gather from the judgment can never be the concern of the judiciary. Uninformed person can have any perception of the judiciary."

Key Distinctions in Judicial Approach

The Supreme Court's ruling establishes several important legal distinctions:

1. Criticism vs. Allegations: The court clearly differentiated between legitimate criticism of judicial reasoning and allegations of corruption within the judiciary.
2. Academic Freedom: The judgment recognizes the importance of presenting multiple perspectives in educational materials.
3. Public Discourse: The ruling affirms that democratic discourse includes questioning and analyzing judicial decisions.
4. Historical Context: The court acknowledged that judicial approaches evolve over time, as evidenced by changing perspectives on slum dwellers' rights.

This landmark decision reinforces the democratic principle that judicial accountability includes being subject to public scrutiny and criticism, while maintaining appropriate boundaries regarding allegations of misconduct. The disposal of the petition marks a significant moment in India's constitutional jurisprudence regarding freedom of expression and judicial independence.