Judiciary and the NCERT Debate

NCERT textbook shows deep-rooted conspiracy to show judiciary as corrupt,” thundered CJI Surya Kant. He issues notice, in fact, a few of them. The Education Secretary, Government of India, Dharmendra Pradhan’s secretary, faces contempt proceedings. How dare he insinuate there is corruption in the judiciary? Granted, the judiciary is a respected institution; in fact, all our institutions are. To denigrate it and them as institutions is unacceptable. I agree. But are they — courts, Election Commission, SEBI, etc. — so sacrosanct that it cannot be asserted that they have corruption in their ranks?

We surely can assert our will. Therefore, it is corruption one must take cognisance of. Those who hold positions in their various ranks are not all above board.

The 4 pm show, anchored by Sanjay Sharma on YouTube a few days ago, has thrown up this type of corruption in the lowest rank of the judiciary — corruption in one district of UP. In his discussion with Abhay Dube, it came up. Abhay Dube admitted to giving bribes to ranks in the judiciary and claimed the judge enjoyed the fruits. Such bribery was universal, he asserted.

In my 33 years of service in CBI, I have seen it in the higher judiciary. The book CBI Tales from the Big Eye, the chapter “Elephant in the Courtroom”, has a tale of corruption in the higher judiciary. Let me elaborate on it.

“The Elephant in the Courtroom” presents corruption as a concrete and document-based allegation arising out of the investigation into the 1993 Bombay serial bomb blasts. Although the narrative begins with the terror conspiracy and the extensive investigation conducted by the CBI, it gradually shifts its focus to what the author describes as corruption in the higher judiciary.

The chapter points out corruption by linking it to the broader conspiracy involving Dawood Ibrahim’s network. During the investigation, Iqbal Mirchi is described as having a role that extended beyond criminal logistics. The text suggests that his function included influencing and corrupting elements within the judiciary. Corruption is therefore presented not as incidental misconduct but as part of an organised design.

The mechanism of corruption is portrayed as structured through an apparently legitimate commercial arrangement. The alleged illegal gratification was disguised as a publishing contract. According to the chapter, a foreign publishing house was to pay a royalty of 80,000 US dollars for the overseas publication and sale of a book authored by the then Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, titled Muslim Law and the Constitution for a period of two years. An advance of approximately 25,000 US dollars or pounds had already been paid. There were also negotiations for 75,000 US dollars relating to another book.

The chapter emphasises that the royalty amount appeared disproportionate to what a foreign publisher would ordinarily pay for an academic work of that nature. This disproportion is presented as the basis for suspicion that the payment was made for reasons other than the stated publishing arrangement. The text refers to emails and documentary material that indicated attempts to regularise the advance payment by creating documentation that would give it the appearance of a legitimate commercial transaction. It is further suggested that the publishing entity itself may have been created as a vehicle for this subterfuge.

Corruption is therefore described as a sophisticated financial arrangement masked under lawful documentation, involving substantial foreign currency transactions and structured agreements. The allegation goes beyond financial impropriety and extends to the possibility of influencing judicial functioning. The narrative refers to discussions within the Bar about individuals who could influence the course of judgment, thereby linking the financial transaction to potential compromise of judicial independence.

The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court following agitation by bar associations seeking the resignation of the Chief Justice concerned. The chapter reproduces portions of the Supreme Court’s order dated 5 September 1995, which laid down that allegations against High Court judges should be examined within the judicial hierarchy, primarily by the Chief Justice and, where necessary, by the Chief Justice of India. According to the author’s interpretation, this chapter identifies the central issue as corruption in the higher judiciary. The investigation revealed an attempt at insulation that may hinder effective accountability. Corruption is thus presented not only as alleged illegal gratification disguised as royalty, but also as a systemic concern relating to the mechanisms available for investigation and scrutiny.

The chapter points out corruption through the description of a structured financial arrangement allegedly masking illegal payment, documentary material suggesting attempts at camouflage, and an institutional framework that confines inquiry within the judiciary itself. The “elephant” referred to in the chapter is the unresolved problem of corruption at the highest levels of the judicial system. Where the higher judiciary is shown in such sombre colours, NCERT boldly chose to make students aware of it. There are other instances. Even one instance blights the institution. Dharmendra Pradhanji deserves high praise.

I will narrate one more. After retiring from CBI, I worked with LG Delhi Tejendra Khanna. Here, one Supreme Court lawyer, the late P. K. Deywas, helped by solving his lady client’s issues with then Commissioner of Police Dadwal. He was so pleased with my help that he narrated the tale of the corruption of a Supreme Court judge. One UP politician, Sanjay Singh, whom I charged with murdering Syed Modi, India’s greatest badminton player ever, was discharged in SC because he corrupted him by personally paying the judge 80 lakh rupees. This amount was given to him by his senior, then a doyen in the SC Bar. This was in 1996.

Corruption is an issue that plagues our higher judiciary. So why not allow it to remain in NCERT books?

Views expressed are personal. The writer served in the CBI from 1963 to 1996