Teaching 'judicial corruption' in Class 8: Pros & cons!

Raju Korti
The decision by the National Council of Educational Research and Training to include a discussion on corruption in the judiciary marks a significant pedagogical shift. Earlier textbooks largely confined themselves to explaining the structure and functions of courts. The revised chapter, titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society,” retains that framework but ventures into more complex terrain by addressing case backlogs, complaints against judges and the constitutional mechanism of impeachment.

The statistical context is stark. The textbook cites approximately 81,000 pending cases in the Supreme Court of India, 62,40,000 in the High Courts of India and 4,70,00,000 in district and subordinate courts. By presenting these numbers, the text situates corruption within a broader systemic challenge of delay and access.

The question is whether Class 8 students, typically aged 13 to 14, are developmentally and civically prepared for such a nuanced discussion.

(Pic representational)

The case for inclusion rests on democratic maturity. Shielding students from institutional imperfections may foster an unrealistic understanding of governance. Introducing the idea that judges are bound by a code of conduct, that complaints can be filed through the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System, and that Parliament can remove a judge through impeachment under constitutional procedure reinforces the principle that no office is above accountability. Far from undermining faith, such transparency can deepen it by demonstrating that the system contains self-correcting mechanisms.

Moreover, civic education in a constitutional democracy is not merely about institutional reverence but about critical engagement. Students exposed early to concepts of checks and balances may grow into citizens who value institutional reform rather than blind loyalty. Acknowledging that corruption can worsen access to justice for the poor may also build empathy and social awareness.

Yet the counter argument is equally compelling. Adolescents at this stage often process information in binaries. Presenting corruption within the judiciary, even with caveats about due process and accountability, may risk creating a premature sense of distrust. The judiciary occupies a unique symbolic position as the guardian of rights. If students internalise the message that even this pillar is compromised, it may contribute to a broader cynicism about public institutions.

There is also the pedagogical challenge of explanation. Corruption in the judiciary is not easily reducible to simple examples without risking distortion. Allegations, complaints and impeachment procedures involve legal nuance. Without careful classroom mediation, students may conflate isolated instances with systemic rot. The impression formed at this age can be enduring.

The long-term implications therefore hinge on delivery rather than mere inclusion. If teachers frame the discussion within the larger constitutional design, emphasising safeguards, procedural fairness and the rarity of extreme measures such as impeachment, the lesson may strengthen constitutional literacy. If presented sensationally or without context, it could erode institutional trust.

The broader repercussion lies in the evolving philosophy of school education. Moving from idealised civics to a more candid account of institutional challenges signals a transition towards democratic realism. Whether that realism matures into informed citizenship or slides into scepticism will depend on the balance struck in classrooms.

The introduction of judicial corruption into a Class 8 textbook is neither inherently premature nor unquestionably appropriate. It is a test of how a society chooses to educate its young about power, accountability and imperfection.