Supreme Court Closes Suo Motu Case Over NCERT Chapter That Styled Judiciary as Corrupt

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant disposed of the proceedings after NCERT recalled 82,440 copies and a revised, balanced chapter replaced the offending text.

The Supreme Court on 1 September 2026 disposed of In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade 8 (Part-2) Published by NCERT and Ancillary Issues, a suo motu writ petition it had taken up in February 2026 after a newspaper report revealed that an NCERT textbook for eighth-grade students contained a sub-topic explicitly captioned “Corruption in the Judiciary.” A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana found that the principal object of the proceedings had been achieved: the offending publication had been withdrawn, unconditional apologies had been tendered by senior government officials, and a revised, balanced chapter — already in classroom use — had been cleared by an expert committee. The Court discharged the show-cause notices issued to the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, and to the Director, NCERT, while binding the Union of India and NCERT to the assurances they had given regarding future content vetting.

How the Dispute Reached the Court

The chain of events began with a report published on 24 February 2026 in The Indian Express. The report covered the release of a new NCERT Social Science textbook for Grade 8 (Part 2), titled Exploring Society: India and Beyond, First Edition. Chapter 4 of that book, captioned “The Role of the Judiciary in our Society,” carried a discrete sub-topic on corruption in the judiciary.

The Court examined the chapter along with a response from the Director, NCERT, Professor (Dr.) Dinesh Prasad Saklani. That examination, the order records, disclosed what the Court described as an attempt to undermine the institutional authority and dignity of the judiciary. The chapter contained no corresponding reference to the constitutional role of the courts or the reformative measures undertaken by the Supreme Court, the High Courts and the District Courts across the country.

On 26 February 2026, the Court took suo motu cognizance. It observed that allowing the chapter to remain in circulation and be taught to students at an impressionable age was bound to erode public faith in the judicial institution. On the same date, the Court issued notices to the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, and to the Director, NCERT.

Immediate Directions: Seizure, Ban and Disclosure

Acting on the concerns it had identified, the Court directed the seizure and withdrawal of all copies of the book from circulation. It also imposed a ban on any further publication or digital dissemination of the textbook. The Director, NCERT was separately directed to disclose the composition of the National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC) and the details of the Textbook Development Team responsible for drafting Chapter 4.

Passing those directions, the Court clarified that the intervention was not intended to stifle legitimate criticism of the judiciary. It recognised dissent, deliberation and rigorous discourse as vital components of a living democracy. The jurisdiction was exercised, it said, not out of aversion to scrutiny, but because of the need to safeguard the pedagogical integrity of material meant for young minds.

Compliance: Apologies, Recall and Committee Formation

In compliance with the directions, Professor Saklani filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology on his own behalf and on behalf of NCERT. A separate affidavit came from Mr. Sanjay Kumar, IAS, Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, who also tendered an unconditional apology and informed the Court that systemic corrective steps had been set in motion.

The Government of India directed the recall of 82,440 copies of the textbook already in circulation.

By an order dated 16 March 2026, the Ministry of Education constituted a three-member expert committee. The committee comprised Justice Indu Malhotra (Retired Judge of the Supreme Court), Shri K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate and former Attorney General for India, and Professor Prakash Singh, Vice-Chancellor, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University. Its mandate was to collaborate with the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, to finalise curricula for Class VIII and other grades on legal studies.

Separately, by a notification dated 2 April 2026, the NSTC was reconstituted as a twenty-member High-Powered Committee. Shri M.C. Pant, former Chancellor, National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, was appointed Chairperson and Professor Manjul Bhargava of Princeton University was appointed Co-Chairperson.

During the course of hearings, the Solicitor General also drew the Court's attention to other objectionable content, including cartoons, appearing in other NCERT publications. That material was directed to be placed before the Expert Committee for review.

The Court's Assessment of the Revised Chapter

The Expert Committee, working with the National Judicial Academy and the reconstituted NSTC, reviewed Chapter 4 and the other material referred to it, and submitted its report together with a revised text on the role and functioning of the judiciary.

The Court said it had perused the report and the revised chapter. It found that the revised text “presents an objective, factually accurate and balanced account of the Judiciary” — setting out its constitutional role and the safeguards of independence and accountability, without glorifying or unfairly disparaging the institution. The Court was informed that the revised chapter had already been circulated to students and was in classroom use at the time of the final hearing.

On Criticism of the Judiciary

Before closing the proceedings, the bench reiterated a position it had stated at their inception. The judiciary, it said, is not and cannot be averse to criticism. Fair, informed and constructive critique of judicial functioning is a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy, contributing to institutional accountability and self-correction.

The distinction the Court drew was not between criticism and silence, but between responsible discourse and uninformed assertion. What the proceedings had addressed was the entry of unverified content into a school curriculum designed for impressionable minds — not the fact of criticism itself.

Clarification Application

An interlocutory application, I.A. No. 261029/2026, had sought clarification of paragraph 5 of the Court's earlier order dated 22 May 2026. That paragraph had recorded a statement by the Solicitor General of India to the effect that the curriculum prepared by certain applicants was not brought before the Committee at all levels and therefore could not be termed a collective decision.

The Court clarified that the passage was merely a statement recorded by it and did not constitute observations or an order of the Court. The application was disposed of on that clarification.

Order

The show-cause notices issued on 26 February 2026 to the Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, and to the Director, NCERT are discharged. The Union of India, NCERT and the concerned authorities remain bound by the assurances given before the Court regarding the content and vetting of educational material relating to public institutions, including the judiciary, in future editions and curricula.

The Court placed on record its appreciation for the work of Justice Indu Malhotra (Retired), Shri K.K. Venugopal and Professor Prakash Singh, and commended the effort of the reconstituted NSTC under Shri M.C. Pant and Professor Manjul Bhargava in re-examining the curriculum within a limited time-frame.

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1/2026 is disposed of and closed. All pending applications stand disposed of in the same terms.