Supreme Court Recalls Remarks Against Three NCERT Experts Over Class 8 Textbook Row; Asks Committee To Review Cartoons In Class 11 Textbook
The Bench modified its previous ex parte directions, expunging remarks that accused the academics of a "deliberate misrepresentation" and leaving future engagement to the independent discretion of the government.
The Supreme Court has recalled its March 11 order that directed the Union and State governments to "disassociate forthwith" from authors Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar over a Class 8 NCERT social science textbook.
The Court clarified that the definitive attribution of a negative or malicious motive to the individual academics is being expunged from the final record.
While maintaining that the textbook’s original narrative was "wholly undesirable" for disproportionately highlighting corruption over the judiciary's constitutional role, the Court noted that the curriculum had not been formally vetted at all institutional levels and could not be deemed a collective authorship decision.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi ordered, "While it must be known in certain terms that the curriculum contained in the Class 8 textbook published by the NCERT was wholly undesirable, necessary remedial steps for the insertion of proper content in relation to the Indian Judiciary have already been taken by the Government of India by constituting an Expert Committee headed by none other than a former Judge of this Court...However, owing to the explanations offered by the applicants, we deem it appropriate to modify Paragraph 8 of the order. We modify Paragraph 8 and clarify the position by recalling the direction given to the Government of India, State Governments, Union Territories, and other universities or institutions to disassociate the three applicants from academic activities. In this regard, we leave it to the Union of India, State Governments, or other appropriate authorities to take an independent decision without being influenced by the observations made in Paragraph 8 of our aforementioned order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for Professor Michel Danino, and Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan appeared for Alok Prasanna Kumar.
"Similarly, the opening line in Paragraph 8 of the order—to the extent that it observed that the three applicants acted deliberately, knowingly, and misrepresented facts—stands modified in light of their explanations. We may add that, according to the instructions received from the Union of India, the curriculum prepared by the applicants was not placed before the full body of members at all levels, and as such, it cannot be deemed a collective decision. We leave the final decision entirely to the Government of India to take appropriate action", the Court added in its order.
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.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted, "So far as the Government is concerned, our decision is that we would not like to associate with them in the future. For the rest of the players, it is entirely Your Lordships' prerogative. There is one more thing which I wanted to bring to Your Lordships' notice—not concerning this specific matter, but I came across another such instance in the Standard 11 textbook. There are certain cartoons printed therein. Now, cartoons per se cannot have any objectionable part, but these cartoons are printed in a context and for an age group that is highly impressionable. It may not be proper to have these cartoons in a textbook. A textbook is not a space where you should use cartoons."
CJI Kant said, "Then we will not say anything on that. What you can do is refer it to the committee, because the committee is now headed by a former Supreme Court Judge. Sister Justice Indu Malhotra is looking into this aspect, and we may request her to continue with the same committee; or, if she finds any other composition necessary, she may make recommendations to that effect."
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan (appearing for Professor Michel Danino) prayed for a modification of the Court’s previous order dated March 11, 2026, specifically in terms of Paragraph 31 of his application. He requested the deletion of certain highly adverse remarks and directions contained in Paragraph 8 of the paper book. Mr. Divan reminded the Bench that the initial order directing public institutions to disassociate from the academics was passed ex parte, without granting them an opportunity to be heard.
Divan further explained that the creation of the curriculum is an entirely collective, institutional responsibility rather than an exercise in individual authorship. Given the far-reaching professional and personal consequences of these remarks on highly decorated academics, he urged the Court to at least suspend the operation of the adverse directions. Chief Justice Kant acknowledged this submission, noting that the Court’s initial prima facie impression was guided by the material then available, and conceded that the applicants could not be held solely responsible for a collective institutional output.
SG Tushar Mehta added, "I would like to mention one thing. My instructions are that this chapter, which was prepared by Mr. Divan's clients, was never formally placed before the committee. It was merely shared by email with three or four members. Therefore, it is not a collective decision. The Government would like to take its own independent decision not to associate with them any further in any such project. Your Lordships have already observed that such decisions can always be taken independently. That is how the direction of the Supreme Court stands."
Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayan (appearing for Alok Prasanna Kumar) raised concerns regarding the residual observations about the academics' professional competence. He argued that the phrasing still implies a lack of fundamental knowledge about the judiciary, which is highly damaging. Mr. Shankarnarayan submitted that the entire controversy had been sensationalized by external actors looking to exploit media narratives. He explained that the chapter was written to maintain pedagogical consistency with the Class 6 and 7 textbooks, which introduce children to everyday governance issues, structural flaws in the executive, and election processes. He asserted that the text aimed to provide a benign, realistic explanation of institutional challenges rather than a malicious critique.
"However, when you actually go through the material, you will see that even in the Class 6 textbook, questions have been raised on everyday issues that children from the age of ten read about in newspapers. When children see these stories, we need to provide a benign, balanced explanation for them rather than making things sound worse. If Your Lordships examine the entire chapter on the Judiciary, it logically follows previous references in the 6th and 7th Standard textbooks concerning the Election Commission, elections, and structural challenges within Parliament and the Executive. All of that is raised in the 6th and 7th Standards...In the first part of the 8th Standard textbook, we address civic administration issues, such as broken roads, etc. When we reached the chapter on the Judiciary in the 8th Standard, we simply maintained that consistency in language and expression. That is all.", he said.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, countered that the text completely lacked curricular balance by neglecting the role of judges in legal services and access to justice.
Justice Bagchi remarked, "That was purely a prima facie view. The conclusive opinion attributing a negative motive to your clients is now being deleted. That ensures that such a conclusion does not form a part of the final order...We are not evaluating this from a purely positive or negative lens. We are looking at whether it presents a balanced view. The fundamental role of the Judiciary in preserving constitutional supremacy was completely missing from the text. On the other hand, corruption was highlighted as if it were a unique, defining feature of the judiciary. There was absolutely nothing mentioned regarding the judicial role of judges in legal services, or their contributions toward ensuring access to justice."
Shankarnarayan then drew attention to the prima facie observations made in the order dated February 26, 2026, which accused the textbook of harboring an underlying agenda to tarnish and demean the institutional authority of the courts. He emphasized that these severe characterizations were formulated before the authors could present their defense, and that the text was a product of the NCERT's structural framework, not an individual conspiracy.
Justice Bagchi reassured counsel that because those initial observations were strictly prima facie, all definitive attributions of negative or malicious motives to the individual clients are being deleted from the final record. The Bench emphasized that it had deliberately left a window open in its previous orders to allow for this exact rectification. Justice Bagchi concluded by noting that the Court's primary concern was curricular balance; the text had completely omitted the vital constitutional role of the judiciary in preserving supremacy and expanding access to justice, while disproportionately highlighting corruption as if it were the institution's primary, defining feature.
The Court also ordered, "The learned Solicitor General of India points out that he has come across certain cartoons, etc., contained in the NCERT textbook for the 11th Standard. According to him, some textbooks produced by the NCERT require to be revisited and reviewed by the Expert Committee constituted by the Government of India, which is headed by Justice Indu Malhotra, a former Judge of this Court. The Solicitor General submits, and rightly so, that the said textbook can also be referred to the Committee of Justice Indu Malhotra. She may review the said textbooks with the current composition of the Committee, or she may suggest a reconstitution of the Committee to the Government of India, whereupon an appropriate order reconstituting the Committee shall be passed. Ordered accordingly. Let the entire issue be placed before Justice Indu Malhotra, former Judge of this Court."
While imposing a "complete blanket ban" on the publication of the controversial NCERT Class VIII Book, the Supreme Court had remarked that exposing young students to biased narratives about the judiciary is improper because such misconceptions will inevitably spread through teachers and parents to impact the entire next generation. The Court found the textbook's narrative particularly egregious for failing to mention judicial initiatives to improve legal aid and access to justice, while simultaneously ignoring the Court's own history of censuring high-ranking officials for corruption and the misuse of public funds.
Cause Title: In Re Social Science Textbook For Grade 8 Part 2 Published By NCERT and Ancillary Issues [SMW(C) No. 1/2026]