The Supreme Court said that criticism of its judgments is not an insult to the judiciary and people have the right to express different views. The Court clarified that criticism of judgments is different from allegations of corruption against the judiciary.
The Supreme Court of India recently heard a petition regarding certain references to the judiciary in NCERT textbooks. The matter was raised by PIL petitioner Pankaj Pushkar, who was earlier associated with NCERT in the preparation of textbooks.
He informed the Supreme Court bench that although the court had earlier ordered the removal of a controversial reference related to corruption in the judiciary, there were still portions in other textbooks that showed the judiciary in a negative light and were still being taught to students.
ALSO READ: Textbook Brands Slum Dwellers as “encroachers”: Former NCERT Insider Moves Supreme Courta
The case was heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi. During the hearing, the petitioner presented an NCERT textbook paragraph which discussed how some people believe that certain court judgments do not always work in the best interests of the common people, especially in cases related to eviction and housing rights of the poor.
The paragraph also referred to the Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation judgment of 1985, which had earlier protected the livelihood rights of slum dwellers.
After reading the paragraph, the Supreme Court made it clear that there was nothing objectionable in the content and that people have the right to express their views and even criticise court judgments. The Court clearly distinguished between criticism of a judgment and allegations of corruption in the judiciary, stating that both are very different.
The Chief Justice of India observed,
“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)”.
The Court further explained that different people can have different perspectives on court judgments, especially in sensitive matters like eviction and land rights. The bench explained that in some cases, courts may consider people as encroachers with no legal right to the land, while others may believe that people who have lived on a piece of land for many years should have a right to stay there.
The Chief Justice of India said,
“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 Court also made an important observation about public opinion on judgments and said that even if someone believes that a court’s decision is wrong, expressing that opinion is not illegal or objectionable.
The bench clearly stated,
“If someone says the court’s view is erroneous, there is nothing wrong in that,”.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the courtroom, informed the Supreme Court that the Central Government had already taken steps in this matter. He told the Court that the Centre has formed a panel of eminent jurists to review all chapters related to the judiciary in school textbooks. The panel includes former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra and former Attorney General K K Venugopal, and the review will be conducted in consultation with National Judicial Academy chairperson Justice Aniruddha Bose.
However, the Solicitor General also made an important statement regarding how common people may interpret court judgments. He said that the judiciary should not be concerned about perceptions formed by people who may not fully understand the legal reasoning behind a judgment.
Tushar Mehta said,
“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.”
After hearing the matter and the statements made by both sides, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition, making it clear that fair criticism of court judgments is allowed and is part of a healthy democracy, but allegations like corruption in the judiciary stand on a completely different and more serious footing.
This case is important because it highlights the balance between protecting the dignity of the judiciary and protecting the freedom of speech and academic discussion in educational materials. The Supreme Court’s observations make it clear that students and citizens can discuss, analyse, and even criticise court judgments, as long as such criticism is fair and not defamatory or based on false allegations.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Justice Dipankar Datta
