New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) over references to “corruption in the judiciary” in a Class 8 Social Science textbook, observing that the controversy appeared to be the result of a “calculated move” that has left the judiciary “bleeding”.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, hearing a suo motu case titled “In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade–8 (Part-2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues”, passed a series of sweeping interim directions, including an immediate nationwide seizure of the textbook, takedown of digital copies and a complete ban on its publication or circulation.
Recording its prima facie view that the publication reflected “a calculated move to undermine the institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary,” the Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, warned that allowing such narratives to remain unchecked would erode public confidence.
The apex court observed that while the chapter purported to discuss the role of the judiciary, it failed to acknowledge the institution’s historic contributions, including safeguarding constitutional morality, upholding the basic structure doctrine and strengthening access to justice through legal aid reforms.
Issuing show-cause notices, the CJI Kant-led Bench directed the Secretary, Department of School Education, Ministry of Education, and NCERT Director Dr Dinesh Prasad Saklani to explain why action under the Contempt of Courts Act or other applicable laws should not be initiated against them or those responsible for drafting the controversial chapter.
The apex court ordered NCERT, in coordination with Union and State education authorities, to immediately seize and remove all physical and digital copies of the book from schools, retail outlets, storage facilities and online platforms.
It fixed personal responsibility on the NCERT Director and school authorities to ensure sealing and withdrawal of all copies and directed Principal Secretaries of Education across states to submit compliance reports within two weeks.
“As an abundant caution,” the CJI Kant-led Bench imposed a “complete and absolute ban” on further publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of the textbook, warning that any attempt to circulate the material would be treated as wilful disobedience of the top court’s order.
It also sought disclosure of the names and credentials of members of the syllabus committee involved in drafting the chapter, along with original minutes of meetings where the content was approved.
While clarifying that the proceedings were not intended to stifle legitimate criticism or academic discourse, the Supreme Court said that educational material must not present a biased account capable of scandalising constitutional institutions.
It further observed that the choice of words in the textbook “may not be a simpliciter inadvertent or bona fide error” and cautioned that, if deliberate, the act could amount to criminal contempt for interfering with the administration of justice and scandalising the institution.
During the hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, the Centre’s second-highest law officer, tendered an unconditional apology on behalf of the authorities and informed the top court that the Secretary, School Education Department, was personally present.
However, the top court expressed strong dissatisfaction with the manner in which the apology had been communicated.
“There is not a single word of apology in their notice,” CJI Kant remarked, adding that the publication appeared to be part of a deeper and coordinated attempt to damage the credibility of the judiciary.
It observed that the consequences of the publication could not be minimised merely by withdrawing individuals associated with the exercise. “That’s of very little consequence. They fired the gunshot — the judiciary is bleeding today,” CJI Kant-led Bench said.
Questioning the genuineness of the apology issued through an NCERT press release, the Supreme Court observed that it would later examine whether the apology was sincere or merely an attempt to escape consequences after irreversible damage had already occurred.
Stating that it would not close the matter until accountability is fixed, the CJI said: “As head of the judiciary, it is my duty to find out who is responsible. We will not close this till we are satisfied.”
SG Mehta submitted that 32 copies of the book had entered the market but were being withdrawn immediately, and assured the court that the entire chapter would be revisited by an expert team.
The Centre’s law officer further stated that authorities would issue takedown orders under statutory provisions and ensure the removal of all digital versions.
The matter has been listed for further hearing after four weeks.
(IANS)
