Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Supreme Court of India on Thursday, February 27, ordered the immediate seizure and takedown of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) class 8 social science textbook carrying a chapter on “corruption in the judiciary”. Imposing a blanket ban, the court delivered some of its strongest observations in recent years. While the apex court called the inclusion of the chapter a “calculated move” to undermine the institution, there was no acknowledgement of the numerous allegations of corruption in the judiciary from the apex court.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, initiated suo motu proceedings and issued show-cause notices to the NCERT director and the secretary of the Department of School Education, asking why action under the Contempt of Courts Act or other laws should not be taken.
The sweeping nature of the order, however, raises uncomfortable questions about proportionality and institutional confidence, particularly whether a constitutional court is justified in silencing discussion rather than contextualising it, even when the subject is its own functioning. The reaction appears especially stark in light of past episodes that entered the public domain on their own terms, including unaccounted cash allegedly recovered from a judge’s residence, and impeachment proceedings against sitting judges.
Why did the court call it serious misconduct?
The bench observed that the contents of the chapter went beyond academic critique and created an impression that corruption within the judiciary was widespread and unchecked. The court held that if the publication was proven to be deliberate, it could amount to criminal contempt by “scandalising the judiciary.”
The judges noted that the chapter cited the number of complaints received against judges in a manner suggesting that no corrective action was taken, without explaining existing accountability mechanisms. The bench also found fault with selective quotes attributed to a former Chief Justice of India, observing that remarks had allegedly been taken out of context to convey that even the head of the judiciary acknowledged systemic corruption.
“Calculated move” and impact on young minds
In a sharply worded observation, the court said the publication appeared to be a “calculated move to undermine the institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary.” It warned that allowing such material to circulate unchecked would erode public confidence, particularly among impressionable students.
The judges stressed that the reach of a school textbook is not limited to classrooms. The narrative, the bench said, would travel to parents, the wider public, and even future generations, embedding lasting misconceptions about constitutional institutions.
Justice Bagchi observed that the book failed to reflect constitutional integrity and ignored the judiciary’s role in upholding the basic structure of the Constitution.
Omission of judiciary’s contributions flagged
The bench expressed strong disapproval over what it described as “egregious silence” on the judiciary’s positive contributions. It noted that while the book highlighted alleged corruption, it made no reference to landmark interventions by courts, reforms in access to justice, or instances where the judiciary censured high-ranking officials for corruption and siphoning of public funds.
“The choice of words and expressions may not be a simpliciter inadvertence or a bona fide error,” the court remarked, indicating that the framing of the chapter warranted deeper scrutiny.
At the same time, the bench clarified that it was not seeking to suppress legitimate criticism or academic scrutiny of public institutions, including the judiciary. The intervention, it said, was necessary to safeguard the pedagogical integrity of the national curriculum.
NCERT’s defence termed “contemptuous and reckless”
The court came down heavily on the NCERT director’s written response sent earlier to the Supreme Court Secretary General, in which the contents of the chapter were defended. The bench described the reply as “contemptuous and reckless,” noting that it contradicted NCERT’s later claim that the inclusion was an inadvertent error.
Chief Justice Kant pointed out that the public statement issued by NCERT did not contain a clear or unconditional apology, raising doubts about whether the subsequent expression of regret was genuine or an attempt to avoid criminal liability.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that NCERT had withdrawn the book and apologised. The bench, however, remained unconvinced. When assurances were given that individuals involved would be disassociated from NCERT, the Chief Justice responded that such steps were of “very little consequence”.
“They fired the gunshot; the judiciary is bleeding today,” the Chief Justice remarked, underscoring the seriousness with which the court viewed the episode.
Senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, flagged that soft copies of the chapter were already circulating widely on social media, prompting the court to direct immediate takedown of all digital versions.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan expressed regret over the episode and assured full compliance with the court’s directions, stating that the government respected the judiciary and would ensure accountability for those responsible.
Reports indicated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had raised concerns over the controversy during internal discussions, questioning what was being taught to class 8 students about constitutional institutions and stressing the need to fix responsibility.
Opposition leaders accused the government of presiding over flawed textbook revisions and demanded a comprehensive probe into recent NCERT changes. Congress leaders described the episode as part of a broader pattern of controversial textbook rewrites and urged the Supreme Court to examine how educational material had become a site of ideological contestation.
Kerala Education Minister V Sivankutty welcomed the court’s intervention and called for an independent expert review of all recent NCERT revisions, warning against the distortion of constitutional values in school curricula.
Accountability and deeper probe ordered
The Supreme Court has made it clear that withdrawal of the book alone would not close the matter. The NCERT director has been directed to submit the names and credentials of all individuals involved in drafting the chapter and to produce the original minutes of meetings where the content was deliberated and approved.
“As the head of the institution, I must find out who is responsible. If there are more than one, heads must roll. I am not going to close these proceedings,” Chief Justice Kant said.
The court warned that any attempt to reintroduce the same content through altered titles or electronic means would be treated as wilful defiance of its orders.
Background to the suo motu case
The proceedings stem from reports published on February 24 highlighting that the newly released NCERT class 8 textbook listed corruption in the judiciary and case backlogs as major challenges. Senior advocates raised concerns before the Chief Justice the following day, prompting the court to take suo motu cognisance.
Reiterating his resolve earlier in the week, the Chief Justice had said he would not allow anyone “on earth” to defame the judiciary and that the move appeared to be deeply calculated.
The matter will now proceed with a detailed examination of how the chapter found its way into the national curriculum, with the Supreme Court signalling that institutional accountability remains the central issue.