SC lifts restrictions on academics linked to controversial NCERT chapter

The Supreme Court has removed restrictions imposed earlier on three academics linked to a controversial NCERT Class 8 textbook chapter on judicial corruption, allowing them to participate again in academic projects connected with public educational institutions.

The court also withdrew its earlier observation that the academics had “deliberately and knowingly” presented facts in a manner intended to create a negative perception of the judiciary among school students.

The decision was passed by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi while hearing applications filed by Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar.

The controversy relates to an NCERT Class 8 social science chapter that discussed issues such as corruption in the judiciary and delays in the justice delivery system.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had ordered the removal of the chapter and prohibited circulation of textbooks carrying the content.

During the latest hearing, the bench maintained that the chapter itself was “wholly undesirable" but accepted submissions that the material had been prepared collectively and without malicious intent.

The court clarified that the Union government and state authorities would remain free to independently decide whether to engage the three academics in future academic assignments without being influenced by the court’s earlier remarks.

The matter arose from a suo motu case initiated over concerns regarding the textbook content and its portrayal of the judiciary before school students.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Professor Michel Danino, argued that the earlier order dated March 11 had been passed without hearing the academics. He also told the court that the chapter was not the work of any one individual author.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Alok Prasanna Kumar, defended the inclusion of discussions around institutional shortcomings in school education.

He argued that students should be encouraged to understand institutions realistically, “with warts and all."

However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed during the hearing that the chapter appeared one-sided because it focused heavily on corruption within the judiciary while not adequately discussing the institution’s positive contributions.

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Suparna Diwakar, argued that the earlier observations of the court had adversely affected the academics and could damage their professional careers and livelihoods.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the Union government had already decided not to involve the three academics in future projects.

The Supreme Court also observed that wider concerns relating to textbook content and educational material could be examined by the expert committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra.