NCERT book line: SC modifies earlier order regarding 3 academics

Supreme Court of India. File | Photo credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 22, 2026) recalled the observations made in an order blacklisting three educationists for preparing a Class 8 NCERT textbook with references to judicial corruption, even as the government verbally expressed its resolve not to associate with them any further.

“The cogent opinion attributing motive to your clients has been expunged. Observations that it was a deliberate misrepresentation to tarnish the judiciary have been removed. We have also set aside the direction that no one should implicate your clients. Now it is left to the independent decision of the government,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of a three-judge bench, addressed Academician Justice Surya Kishu, Chief Justice of India.

Author and scholar Michel Danino, educationist Suparna Divakar and legal researcher Alok Prasanna Kumar approached the apex court seeking deletion of portions of the March 11 order accusing them of twisting it to “project a negative image of the Indian judiciary before Class 8 students”.

Editorial | Selective outrage: on the Supreme Court and the NCERT textbook

“The problem was only with the content and not with the creators,” Justice Bagchi said.

The court gave carte blanche to the Union government, states, universities and public institutions receiving government funds to “dissociate” themselves from the three educationists. “We see no reason why such persons should in any way associate for the purpose of preparing the curriculum or finalizing the textbooks for the next generation of this country,” the court said in a March 11 order.

The educators claimed that the March 11 order was passed ex parte without even hearing their side of the story. They said that the controlled sections were included in the textbook as a result of a collective decision. Academics said they are not mere “night operators” but distinguish themselves in their respective fields of education. Mr. Danino is a Padma Shri awardee.

“I don’t even want to read it (the part of the March 11 order indicting the three academics)… These are distinguished academics. These observations in paragraph 8 of your March 11 order have far-reaching implications. I have a rather modest request from you… Please delete the adverse statements in that paragraph,” Senior Advocate Shyam Divan argued for Mr. Danin.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the content that was challenged was “completely objectionable”.

Distorted display

Justice Bagchi said the court felt that the textbook’s portrayal of the judiciary was distorted. The role of the judiciary in terms of its constitutional supremacy has been neglected while corruption has been highlighted as a unique feature of the judiciary, the judge pointed out.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for Mr. Kumar, said the content of the chapter in the textbook did not lead to malice.

“It is only when we discuss the problems in our schools that solutions can come… We tend to whitewash our institutions, children don’t have to be subjected to that. Leave us, warts and all,” he added.

Mr Sankaranarayanan said adverse observations like those in the March 11 order had a “massive impact”.

While recalling the “harsh” remarks in the order, the court said it was up to the government to decide for itself whether to associate with the three academics or not.

Mr Mehta denied the academics’ claim that the inclusion of the relevant chapter was a “collective” challenge. He said “the government would like to take its own decision not to bring them together in any work any further”.

Published – 22 May 2026 14:29 IST