The Supreme Court on Thursday banned across the board a Class 8 NCERT book containing a chapter on judicial corruption. The Supreme Court also ordered the seizure of all physical copies along with the removal of their digital versions, news agency PTI reported.
The Supreme Court ordered the Center and state authorities to comply with its directions immediately and warned of “serious action” if the directions are violated in any form.
Read also | Line “Corruption in the Judiciary” | NCERT reportedly withdraws 8th class textbook
A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said there appeared to be a “calculated move” to undermine the institution and degrade the dignity of the judiciary.
The court said such misconduct, which has a lasting impact on the judiciary, would fall under the definition of criminal contempt. “We would like to have a deeper probe,” the bench said.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said he wants to find out who is behind the publication of the chapter that mentions “corruption in the judiciary”. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Government of India stands by the judiciary and will take whatever steps the Supreme Court wants.
SC issues notice
The Supreme Court has issued a show cause notice to the Secretary, Ministry of Education and Literacy (Ministry of Education) and Director, NCERT Dr. Dinesh Prashad Saklani to explain why it is appropriate to proceed under the Contempt Act or any other law against those who prepared the sub-chapter in NCERT Class 8 book “Corruption in Judiciary,” news agency ANI reported.
The watchdog noted that there was a “deep-rooted conspiracy” behind the content.
“This is a very deliberate move – the entire teaching will be dictated. If you look at how the Indian judiciary is portrayed as corrupt, it will be clear what message is being sent. The entire teaching community will first be taught that this is what they have to teach. In fact, no section of the society has been left untouched. It is a deep-rooted, well-planned and organized conspiracy system,” CANI said.
Read also | SC stays criminal proceedings in ED case against Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren
Refusing to stay its suo motu proceedings, even after the NCERT apologized in view of the said selective inclusion of the said chapter, CJI Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi emphasized that any attempt to circumvent or bypass the order would be considered a direct interference with the administration of justice and the will of the court.
What is NCERT Textbook Case?
The case pertains to a Class 8 social studies textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). The section caused controversy due to the inclusion of the “corruption of the judiciary” segment.
The textbook reportedly contains a passage on the subject in a chapter titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society.” LiveMint has not seen the textbook.
The Supreme Court heard the matter suo motu.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal raised the matter before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Wednesday. However, during the proceedings, the Supreme Court stated that it had already taken note of the matter.
What did the Court say?
The Supreme Court further directed the NCERT to record the details of the Teaching and Learning Materials Committee which approved the impugned chapter. The names, qualifications and credentials of all members of the chapter’s development team are to be submitted to the court, news agency ANI reported.
“They fired the gun and the judiciary is bleeding today. Anyone can say anything today. We are under increasing attack at times and we are aware of it. The material is available online, in stores and even in stores,” the chief justice said.
Read also | Will comply with CCI order for user consent by March 16, says WhatsApp SC
Except for the NCERT communication on Wednesday, the SC said there was not a single word of apology in it and instead sought to justify it.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta offered an unconditional and unreserved apology on behalf of the Education Ministry. The bench referred the matter for further hearing on March 11.
