By Tapesh Raghav
Every citizen’s relationship with the justice system begins long before they ever enter a courtroom. It begins in school. A civics chapter, often read without much fanfare, introduces young students to the institutions that protect their rights and maintain the rule of law. At that stage, education is not merely about facts; it shapes instincts. It influences how future citizens perceive authority, fairness and the credibility of public institutions.
This is why the recent controversy over the portrayal of the judiciary in a school textbook has drawn national attention. The Supreme Court of India stepped in on its own motion after concerns were raised about how the justice system was presented to Class 8 students. In proceedings titled In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade-8 (Part 2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues | SMW (C) 1/2026, the Court ordered that the textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training be withdrawn from circulation and sought explanations from the authorities responsible for its content.
At the heart of the issue lies an important question: how should constitutional institutions be introduced to young minds?
No democratic system is free from difficulties. Courts face heavy caseloads, administrative limitations and procedural complexities. Acknowledging these realities is necessary for transparency and reform. However, the manner in which such challenges are presented matters greatly, especially in material designed for adolescents encountering the subject for the first time.
Educational narratives must provide perspective. Institutions cannot be understood only through their constraints. Courts operate within a larger ecosystem shaped by legislative frameworks, budgetary allocations, staffing levels and the conduct of litigants. Presenting challenges without explaining their broader context risks creating an incomplete impression.
Judicial authority rests on a foundation that is different from that of other branches of government. Courts do not enforce their decisions through executive power or political mandate. Their effectiveness depends on public acceptance of their legitimacy. The American constitutional thinker Alexander Hamilton observed that the judiciary relies on judgment rather than force, making credibility its greatest strength. Political philosopher John Locke similarly argued that institutions endure when people trust their authority.
Indian constitutional vision reflects the same principle. Dr B.R. Ambedkar emphasised that democracy survives not merely through laws but through a culture that respects constitutional institutions. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer frequently noted that access to justice gives life to constitutional guarantees. These perspectives underline the idea that public confidence is essential to the functioning of courts.
Young students are still developing the ability to evaluate institutional complexities. When their earliest exposure emphasises shortcomings without equal attention to purpose and safeguards, impressions may form prematurely. Civic education should therefore present institutions in a balanced manner, encouraging understanding rather than scepticism.
It is also important to recognise that misconduct, when it occurs, is an individual failing rather than an institutional identity. No organisation composed of human beings can claim to be entirely free from error. What distinguishes strong institutions is their ability to correct wrongdoing through established procedures and oversight mechanisms. Explaining these safeguards is crucial to a fair understanding of how systems function.
The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in shaping democratic life. It has interpreted fundamental rights expansively, addressed social inequalities and enabled citizens to approach courts through public interest litigation. It has examined executive decisions and legislative measures to ensure they conform to constitutional principles. These contributions form an essential part of the institution’s identity and deserve representation in educational material.
Global experience shows that public perceptions can influence institutional resilience. In several democracies, sustained narratives questioning judicial integrity coincided with tensions over court independence. Developments in countries such as Poland and Hungary illustrate how declining public trust can complicate efforts to preserve institutional autonomy. Restoring confidence once weakened is often a slow and demanding process.
Democracy requires citizens who are both informed and confident in the institutions that uphold justice. Constructive criticism supports accountability, but it must coexist with recognition of institutional roles and safeguards. Educational content carries special responsibility because it shapes civic understanding at a formative stage.
Schools are often where respect for the rule of law begins. Introducing students to the judiciary with care and balance can foster awareness while preserving confidence. A portrayal lacking proportion, however unintended, may leave lasting impressions that later experience struggles to correct.
Institutions endure not solely because they exist in law but because people believe in their fairness and purpose. That belief develops gradually, beginning with early civic education. If future generations are to value justice and constitutional order, the lessons that first introduce them to courts must be thoughtful, balanced and complete.
Tapesh Raghav is an independent litigation advocate before the Delhi High Court with expertise in Education, civil, commercial, banking, and cyber law disputes. A recognised cyber policy expert, he advises clients on technology regulations, data governance, digital compliance, and emerging cyber risks, integrating legal strategy with evolving digital frameworks.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETEDUCATION does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETEDUCATION will not be responsible for any damage caused to any person or organisation directly or indirectly.
