Breaking: Supreme Court Directs Union And States To Disassociate From Authors Of NCERT's "Judicial Corruption" Chapter

The Supreme Court directed the Union and State governments to "disassociate forthwith" from authors Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar, barring them from any roles funded by public money.

Further, the Bench slammed the "casual" approval process that bypassed the National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC), mandating that any future judicial curriculum must be vetted by a new high-powered committee comprising a former senior judge, a renowned academician, and a legal practitioner.

On February 25, the Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter on February 25, 2026, after Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi mentioned the issue before the Bench and expressed that the legal community is "deeply disturbed" by the fact that young students are being taught that the judiciary is a corrupt body.

On the last date of hearing, the Court issued show-cause notice for contempt to the Secretary of School Education, Ministry of Education and the Director of NCERT while imposing a "complete blanket ban" on the publication.

The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi ordered, "At the outset, we have more reasons to doubt that Professor Michel Danino, along with Ms. Diwakar and Mr. Alok Prasanna Kumar, either does not have reasonable knowledge about the Indian judiciary or they deliberately and knowingly misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian judiciary before students of Class 8, who are at an impressionable age. We see no reason why these kinds of people should be associated in any manner for the purpose of the preparation of the curriculum and finalization of the textbooks for the next generation of children of this country, or for any other purpose...Subsequently, we direct the Union and all State Governments, Union Territories, all universities, and public institutions receiving government funds to disassociate from the three of them forthwith and not to assign any responsibility which incurs costs, wholly or partially, from public funds. This is subject to them approaching this court to seek modification after tendering their response..." 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India.

The Court added, "If the NCERT wishes to teach the next generation about the judiciary, we are disappointed that no single eminent jurist is on the committee. We are equally perturbed by the stand taken by the NCERT director. If at all the chapter is rewritten, we direct that the same shall not be published unless approved by a committee of domain experts. We direct the Government of India to frame a committee of domain experts which should have one former senior judge, one renowned academician, and one renowned practitioner."

For the media and socialmedia platforms, the Court remarked, "Some elements in so-called social media have acted irresponsibly. We firmly believe in catching the bull by its horns. We direct the Government of India to identify the platforms and the persons who have indulged in such action so that lawful action can be taken. The law must take its course..."

The Court ordered, "On February 26, this court, after reading an article in the Indian Express dated February 24 regarding the Social Science textbook for Grade 8 published by the NCERT, took suo motu cognizance of repeated offending contents of the said chapter and consequently issued interim directions, which were ex facie meant for maligning the Indian judiciary. In compliance thereof, Professor Dinesh Saklani, Director, NCERT, has filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology for the inclusion of the said chapter in the Social Science textbook of Grade VIII. Prof. Saklani has disclosed that a textbook development team, under the chairmanship of a visiting professor, drafted the offending chapter. Ms. Suparna Diwakar and Mr. Alok Prasanna Kumar were also associated with the visiting professor. The draft curriculum was sought to be deliberated with the NSTC, comprising 19 persons. It is stated that the draft chapter was NOT placed before the NSTC but was circulated only among a few members digitally."

On March 10, 2026, the NCERT issued a public apology which said, "National Council of Educational Research and Training [NCERT] has recently published a social science text book “Exploring Society: India and Beyond” Grade 8 (Part -II) which contained Chapter IV titled “The Role of Judiciary in our Society”. The Director and Members of NCERT hereby tender an unconditional and unqualified apology for the said Chapter IV. The entire book has been withdrawn and is not available." 

It also said , "It seems that the Government of India, Ministry of Education, took cognizance of the offending contents after the publication of the article in the newspaper, and directions were issued for 82,450 books published in the meanwhile. It is thus stated in the affidavit that all urgent steps have been taken to implement the directions. However, the reply of the NCERT director is disturbing, as it is submitted that in terms of the directions issued by us, Chapter IV of the book has been duly rewritten. It is further stated that the revised chapter shall be incorporated in the forthcoming academic session and shall be implemented across schools in terms of the applicable school curriculum framework. Neither the affidavit nor the court has been otherwise appraised as to who the subject experts or domain experts are who have invoked and written this chapter, or who approved it for incorporation in the curriculum of the academic session 2026-2027. Suffice it to say that more complexity shall be created. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Secretary, Department of School Education, Ministry of Education, has also tendered an unconditional apology and has further stated that the ministry has already taken systemic steps to ensure that such an eventuality does not reoccur."

Mehta submitted, "Two affidavits have been filed tendering unconditional apology. An ad was also put out with an apology. The Central government has also directed NCERT to review all books across all standards...The officers are also present in the Court."

CJI Kant said, "We would have appreciated it if you yourself had constituted a high-powered committee...The affidavit is an eye-opener because the curriculum is approved without approval at any level. The matter should have gone before the body... If this isntje casual way of publishing curriculum for students of this country, then what can we say?"

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted, "Mylords, there are problems not only with the chapter. But across the book. So the committee should look at all aspects."

Chief Justice remarked, "The manner in which some antisocial elements have also reacted. I know how to deal with them, and they will know how to deal with the Chief Justice of India. Anyways, we will look at that."

Justice Bagchi asked, "Who exactly are these experts?...What is the specific content of the new chapter?...How was it rewritten if the previous version bypassed official approval levels?...If our understanding of grammar is correct... in what manner has it been rewritten and what is the content of the present chapter?" 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Court that the disputed content would not reach students. He emphasized that the government is moving toward a systemic change to ensure that such "selective" digital versions of the curriculum do not bypass the high-powered committees intended to vet them.

The Court concluded, "We maintain that the interim directions issued on February 26 and today's order are not meant to prevent any healthy, legitimate criticism of the institutional functioning of the judiciary. If the judiciary, like any other institution, suffers from deficiencies and if such deficiencies are pointed out, it will help future judges and practitioners and would aid present stakeholders in taking correctional steps."

Previously, the Court had noted that the textbook mentions hundreds of complaints against judges and uses quotes from a former CJI to suggest a lack of institutional transparency. The Court finds this narrative "contemptuous and reckless," especially since the Director of the UGC initially defended the content instead of reflecting on its impact. The Bench observes that the book ignores the illustrious history of the Supreme Court and High Courts, failing to mention their role in protecting the "basic structure doctrine" and providing legal aid.

Cause Title: In Re Social Science Textbook For Grade 8 Part 2 Published By NCERT and Ancillary Issues [SMW(C) No. 1/2026]