Context:

• The Supreme Court’s recent suo motu intervention regarding an NCERT textbook passage allegedly portraying judicial corruption has highlighted the importance of protecting the reputation and dignity of public institutions.
• The Court’s action underscores that public confidence is central to constitutional governance.
• However, the episode also raises a broader constitutional issue: whether the principle of dignity and protection from misrepresentation should apply equally to institutions and social communities, especially in educational content.

Supreme Court’s Assertion of Institutional Responsibility:

• Protection of institutional credibility:
  • The Court emphasised that constitutional institutions depend on public trust, not merely legal authority.
  • The misrepresentation in textbooks can cause long-term reputational damage, particularly among young students.
  • Swift judicial intervention signals the need to protect institutional legitimacy in a democracy.
• Significance of suo motu action: It demonstrates judicial vigilance in safeguarding constitutional institutions, reinforcing the idea that reputational harm can weaken governance structures.

Education and Civic Imagination:

• Role of textbooks in nation-building:
  • Textbooks shape civic consciousness and democratic values.
  • Curriculum choices influence how citizens understand history, society, and constitutional values.
  • Omission or selective representation can produce distorted public understanding.
• Recent curriculum changes:
  • Recent NCERT revisions have drawn attention to omissions and modifications -
    • Removal of references to the Gujarat riots (Class XII Political Science).
    • Dilution and later removal of references to the Babri Masjid demolition.
    • Reduced coverage of Mughal history, Caste struggles, and Dalit movements.
  • While curriculum revision is normal in governance, cumulative changes raise concerns about sanitised history and selective narratives.

Representation and Social Perception:

• Risks of partial narratives:
  • Communities represented mainly through conflict narratives (which reinforce stereotypes), and victimhood narratives (which obscure agency and achievements).
  • Partial truths, repeated over time, can become deep-rooted prejudice.
• Importance of balanced representation:
  • Honest history must include oppression and injustice, reform movements, intellectual traditions, and contributions to society.
  • Balanced representation strengthens democratic citizenship.

Constitutional Doctrine of Dignity:

• Justice Ujjal Bhuyan: Emphasised that vilification of communities on grounds of religion, caste, language, or region is constitutionally impermissible.
• Centrality of fraternity:
  • Fraternity is a core constitutional value. It ensures social cohesion, mutual respect, and shared belonging.
  • Without fraternity, equality becomes formal, and liberty becomes fragmented.

Constitutional Framework:

• The principle of dignity is supported by multiple constitutional provisions.
• For example,
  • Preamble: Fraternity assures the dignity of the individual.
  • Fundamental Rights: Article 14 (Equality before law), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination), Article 21 (Right to life including dignity).
  • Fundamental Duties: Article 51A(e) – Promotion of harmony and brotherhood.
• Together, these provisions establish a normative framework for respectful public discourse.

Statutory Safeguards:

• Legal provisions addressing hate speech and vilification include -
  • IPC Section 153A – Promoting enmity between groups.
  • IPC Section 153B – Imputations prejudicial to national integration.
  • IPC Section 295A – Outraging religious feelings.
  • IPC Section 505 – Statements causing public mischief.
• These laws form the legal backbone against communal incitement, though enforcement often appears uneven.

Challenges:

• Selective vigilance: Strong protection of institutions but inconsistent protection of communities creates a perceived hierarchy of dignity.
• Curriculum politicisation: Educational content influenced by political priorities risk of historical sanitisation.
• Uneven legal enforcement: Hate speech laws applied inconsistently. Normalisation of stereotypes in public discourse.
• Weak emphasis on fraternity: Fraternity remains the least discussed constitutional value. The concept saw limited integration into policy and education.

Way Forward:

• Ensure balanced curriculum: NCERT revisions should be evidence-based, transparent, academically rigorous, and include multiple perspectives in historical narratives.
• Consistent constitutional protection: Equal protection of institutions, individuals, and communities, to avoid hierarchy of dignity.
• Strengthen legal enforcement: Uniform application of hate speech provisions, and clear standards for intervention.
• Promote constitutional values: Greater emphasis on fraternity, dignity, and social harmony. Integrate constitutional ethics into education.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court’s intervention on NCERT content goes beyond protecting judicial reputation; it signals a broader constitutional principle — dignity is indivisible.
• A robust democracy must defend both institutions and communities with equal seriousness.
• The true strength of constitutional governance lies not only in safeguarding its institutions but also in ensuring that every citizen and community enjoys equal respect and belonging.