Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said the NCERT Class 8 chapter that mentions “corruption in the judiciary” has fed a wider crisis of public confidence. He argued the controversy would not have arisen if judges had consistently acted in line with constitutional morality.
Sibal spoke at “Justice Unplugged 2026”, organised by The Hindu in association with the VIT School of Law. He addressed the theme “Constitutional Morality and the Supreme Court of India: Has the Court Moved from Constitutionalism to Pragmatism?” in conversation with M Ram, Director of The Hindu Group.
“Selective targeting” of the judiciary
Sibal said the chapter singles out the judiciary as an institution. He added that students should learn about corruption in society, but a textbook should not isolate judicial corruption. According to him, that framing may leave children thinking justice is routinely compromised.
He said corruption exists across institutions. He questioned why a reference to corruption in the judiciary “suddenly” appeared in a Class 8 book. He argued such a narrative would not gain traction if judges consistently followed constitutional morality. In his view, when people start seeing an institution as broadly corrupt, such themes enter school material.
Sibal also said the framing shapes young students—whom he placed at around 13–14 years—to approach courts believing judges are corrupt. He contrasted this with other institutions. He said the book did not similarly highlight the political system or investigative agencies. He alleged the selective focus aimed to intimidate the judiciary and weaken it further.
Reference to Supreme Court’s suo motu action
Sibal referred to the Supreme Court’s response. In a suo motu case registered against NCERT officials, the Court last week said the content attempted to scandalise the judiciary. It ordered seizure of hard copies and removal of soft copies.
During the discussion, M Ram asked if a complete ban on distribution went too far. Sibal defended the direction. He said the Court needed to protect children’s faith in institutions. He added that children should grow into citizens with purpose and vision. He asked what would happen if they grew up believing the judiciary is corrupt.
Sibal said the chapter might not have triggered the same reaction if it had placed judicial corruption within a broader discussion on societal corruption. He also claimed NCERT would not usually introduce such material on its own. He alleged it acted at the government’s behest. He added that he welcomed the Chief Justice taking up the issue and supported the Court’s approach.
“Breakdown of constitutional machinery”
On constitutional morality, Sibal described it as dynamic. He said courts must interpret constitutional principles with changing times. He stressed adjudication “without fear or favour.”
He then claimed the country is seeing a breakdown of constitutional morality and constitutional machinery. He said the executive uses its legislative majority to govern. He also said the Opposition does not get a hearing. In that setting, he said, the Supreme Court faces serious issues. He cited allegations of hate or communal speeches by public functionaries and repeated arrests of student leaders who protest. He claimed the Court often asks petitioners to approach High Courts instead of deciding such matters itself.
Referring to Article 32 petitions, Sibal questioned why the Supreme Court sends matters to High Courts when Article 32 is a fundamental right. He cited an example where a Chief Minister allegedly made a statement while holding a gun. He asked why the Court would hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction if it must deliver justice without fear or favour.
References to arrests, PMLA and UAPA
Sibal referred to arrests of student protestors at JNU. He also mentioned arrests of protestors at Mandapam during the AI Impact Summit. He said they were protestors and no crime justified their arrest. He claimed institutions now suppress dissent.
He referred to the use of the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA and to the UAPA. He alleged agencies target Opposition figures. He also claimed leaders in BJP-ruled States or at the Centre do not face similar action by the CBI or the ED under the PMLA. He said High Courts do not act in many cases. He added that lower courts often deny bail. In his view, constitutional morality has become “alien” to courts. He said this remains his biggest worry about the Supreme Court.
“Height of intolerance” and comments on secularism
On minority rights and secularism, Sibal said intolerance has existed for long. He pointed to Constituent Assembly debates and said majoritarian views surfaced even then. He also said several participants opposed Articles 29 and 30.
He said the present moment feels different. He claimed intolerance has grown deeper. He also said India is “essentially not a secular nation” unless society undergoes transformation. He alleged stratification increased after 2014. He claimed caste now serves as a tool of domination. He also alleged institutions have been “captured,” while describing the judiciary as the only exception.
Reference to Delhi liquor case discharges and “colonial mindset”
Sibal referred to the recent discharge of AAP leader and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and other leaders in the Delhi liquor scam case.
He criticised what he called a “colonial mindset” in criminal procedure. He referred to the Code of Criminal Procedure and noted that changes are now underway. He said the older approach enabled arrest first and evidence later. He linked that model to British-era policing used against protestors. He argued a modern rule-of-law system should require evidence before arrest.
He claimed authorities now apply that approach more aggressively. He named Kejriwal, Sisodia, the Gandhi family, Hooda, Hemant Soren, Akhilesh Yadav, Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah, and others as targets. He also claimed “not one” leader aligned with the ruling establishment faces similar action. He ended by repeating his view that the country remains far from secular.
