In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court of India on Thursday took suo motu cognisance of a Class 8 social science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) that allegedly portrayed the judiciary in a selective and critical manner. Terming the episode a “deep-rooted conspiracy,” the Bench demanded an unconditional apology from the Central Government and ordered the immediate withdrawal of both hard and digital copies of the book.
Keywords:
Supreme Court suo motu, NCERT textbook controversy, corruption in judiciary chapter, contempt of court, judicial dignity, constitutional institutions, education policy India
Tags:
#SupremeCourt #NCERT #Judiciary #ContemptOfCourt #EducationPolicy #ConstitutionOfIndia #InstitutionalIntegrity #IndianLaw
The Court also initiated contempt proceedings and sought identification of those responsible for the chapter’s content, signalling serious institutional and legal consequences.
The Controversial Chapter
The dispute centers on Chapter 4 titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society.” According to the Bench, the chapter highlighted instances of “corruption in the judiciary” but failed to adequately reflect the institution’s constitutional contributions—such as:
-
Evolution of the basic structure doctrine
-
Safeguarding fundamental rights
-
Curbing corruption in public office
-
Strengthening constitutional governance
The Court observed that the language used in the chapter “may not be simpliciter inadvertent or bona fide error,” suggesting that the narrative may have been deliberate rather than accidental.
Court’s Strong Observations
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, expressed deep concern over the potential impact of such material on young students.
The Court remarked:
“It seems to us that there is a calculated move to undermine the institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary.”
It warned that if the content was found to be intentional, it could attract proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, as attempts to erode public trust in the judiciary strike at the foundation of constitutional democracy.
At the same time, the Bench clarified that the proceedings are not intended to stifle legitimate academic critique. Instead, the objective is to ensure balanced educational content and protect institutional integrity.
Immediate Directives Issued
The Supreme Court issued sweeping directions, including:
-
Immediate removal of all hard copies from schools and retail outlets
-
Withdrawal of digital versions from official platforms
-
Complete halt on further production and distribution
-
Filing of strict compliance reports within two weeks
-
Identification of members of the National Syllabi Board responsible for approving the chapter
Notices under the Contempt of Courts Act were issued to NCERT and the Department of School Education.
CJI Kant underscored the seriousness of the matter, stating:
“We would like to have a deeper probe. We need to find who is responsible and we will see who are there. Heads must roll! We will not close the case.”
NCERT’s Response
NCERT acknowledged the lapse, halted distribution of the textbook, and assured the Court that the contentious portion would be rewritten after due consultation. However, the Bench expressed dissatisfaction with initial attempts by the University Grants Commission to defend the content once the controversy surfaced.
Broader Constitutional Implications
The case raises important questions regarding:
-
Academic freedom versus institutional responsibility
-
Limits of critique in school-level textbooks
-
Contempt jurisdiction and institutional dignity
-
The role of state agencies in curriculum framing
While critical engagement with institutions is essential in a democracy, the Court appears to draw a distinction between scholarly critique and narratives that may undermine constitutional faith among impressionable students.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s intervention marks a rare and forceful assertion of institutional protection in the educational sphere. By invoking its contempt jurisdiction suo motu, the Court has signalled that educational content touching upon constitutional institutions must adhere to fairness, balance, and responsibility.
The matter is now poised for further scrutiny, with the possibility of accountability extending beyond mere correction of the textbook.
By KANISHKSOCIALMEDIA For more updates on environmental regulations, public health policies, and developments in India’s governance, follow Kanishk Social Media for comprehensive and timely coverage of critical issues. If you found this article helpful, share it with others interested in India’s environmental efforts and policy innovation
0 Comments