The Supreme Court on Thursday (Feb 26, 2026) said there was a “deep-rooted conspiracy” behind a “very, very deliberate move” to portray the judiciary as an aspirational institution in a Class 8 social studies textbook.
The textbook was released by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), an autonomous organization under the Ministry of Education, in February.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, while hearing the case suo motu, said the “reckless, irresponsible, motivated, contemptuous conduct and manner” of the text display was intended to inculcate anti-judiciary bias in the “impressive minds” of school-age children and through them, society at large.
Supreme Court Hearing on Class 8 NCERT Textbook: Watch for Updates 26 Feb 2026
‘Heads must be spinning’
The bench said “heads must roll”. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the repentant Union government, said, “We are all hanging our heads in shame,” and offered an unconditional and unreserved apology to the court.
Mr. Mehta said that the people who worked on the textbook would never be given the task again by the Ministry of Education. If he had his way, Mr. Mehta added, neither would any other ministry employ them.
However, these statements do not seem to have appeased the court. The bench ordered a “plain and complete” ban on the book and ordered the immediate seizure and sealing of every copy, both digital and physical.
“The judiciary is bleeding”
The court initiated contempt proceedings and issued show-cause notices to both the Education Ministry’s School Education and Literacy Department Secretary and NCERT Director Dinesh Prasad Saklani, who the court said had “advocated” the “offensive content” even as the Supreme Court’s chief justice sought an explanation.
“They fired the gun and the judiciary is bleeding today,” Chief Justice Kant said to the lawyer.
The court said that on the face of it, the scrutiny of the book’s content and the director’s response appear to be a calculated move to undermine institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary. In its order, the Bench said that the publication “with a single stroke of the pen washed away the glorious history associated with the Supreme Court, Supreme Courts” and their substantial contribution to the preservation of democratic values.
“The text does not mention the imperative role of the judiciary in upholding the constitutional morality and basic structure which is the lifeblood of the Indian citizenry. The story of the book chooses not to deal with any transformational measures or initiatives to revamp even legal aid and streamline easy access to the justice machinery. This silence is particularly odious given the high number of corrupt officials who have been highly regarded by the courts in the past. particularly egregious. fraudulent activities,” the Bench observed.
“Deeper Probe”
Chief Justice Kant said the court would not let the matter sink into oblivion after a word of apology from the government or NCERT.
“It is a well-organized and planned step. I would like to have a deeper investigation. As the head of justice, it is my duty to find out who is responsible. If there are more, heads must be put together. The responsibility must be there. I will not close this proceeding until I am satisfied,” the head of justice told the Union government.
Senior members of the Bar, including senior advocates Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi and Supreme Court Bar President Vikas Singh, agreed that the content was “definitely deliberate”.
“The book will not remain only with the students. Its content must travel from the teacher to the student to the parents and the entire society, including the next generation… It can have a lasting impact on the independence of the judiciary. Such misconduct falls under criminal contempt. If this action is found to be intentional, it will mean scandalizing the institution and bringing it into disrepute,” the court said.
“Protection of young students”
The court clarified that its suo motu registration of the case should not be interpreted as a move to suppress legitimate criticism of public institutions, including the judiciary.
“We firmly believe that dissent, deliberation, rigorous discourse are vital to democracy and serve as essential tools of institutional accountability. Judicial intervention has arisen to ensure pedagogical integrity. Young students in their formative years are just beginning to navigate the nuances of public life and the constitutional architecture that sustains it. It is fundamentally inappropriate to subject them to this age, which can be abused, to subject them to a false bidding process.” the Supreme Court emphasized.
Published – 26 Feb 2026 21:20 IST
