The Supreme Court on Wednesday sharply criticised the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) over a controversial chapter in a Class 8 Social Science textbook, questioning the manner in which school curricula were prepared and approved.
During the hearing, the Court expressed concern that the curriculum appeared to have been published without proper institutional scrutiny.
“If this is the casual way of publishing the curriculum for the students in this country, what do you expect us to do?” the Bench asked the government.
The Court was informed that Dinesh Prasad Saklani, Director of NCERT, had filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional and unqualified apology on his own behalf and on behalf of the institution for the inclusion of the contentious material in the textbook.
The affidavit disclosed that the chapter had been drafted by a textbook development team chaired by historian Michel Danino, with Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar associated in the process.
“The central government has already directed NCERT to review textbooks of all standards… not just Class 8,” the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, said, adding that a committee of independent and neutral domain experts would be constituted.
The Court indicated that it would have preferred the government itself to constitute a high-level committee rather than leaving the matter entirely to NCERT. Accepting the suggestion, the Solicitor General responded: “It shall be done.”
Court Questions Textbook Revision Process
The Bench also questioned NCERT’s claim that the controversial chapter had already been “duly rewritten”. Referring to the affidavit filed by the Director of NCERT, the Court asked who had rewritten the chapter and under what academic framework.
The Court noted that the affidavit merely stated that the chapter had been “duly rewritten” without explaining who prepared the revised content or how it was vetted.
The Bench further observed that if the curriculum sought to educate students about the functioning of the judiciary, it was surprising that no eminent jurist had been included in the relevant academic committee involved in the process. While refraining from making adverse observations about individual members, the Court suggested that such committees should ideally include experts from diverse domains to ensure balanced academic input.
SC Bars Authors From Future Public-Funded Academic Roles
The Court also expressed concern over the role of certain individuals involved in drafting the chapter and directed that they be disassociated from responsibilities involving public funds. Referring to the drafting process, the Bench observed:
“It appears to us that Professor Michel Danino and his associates either do not have reasonably informed knowledge with respect to the Indian judiciary, or they deliberately and knowingly misrepresented facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian judiciary before students of Class 8.”
Accordingly, the Court directed that Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar be disassociated forthwith from universities, public institutions or any academic bodies receiving government funds, and that they should not be assigned any responsibilities funded wholly or partly from the public exchequer.
At the same time, the Court clarified that the direction was not final and would remain subject to their right to approach the Court.
“This order shall, however, remain subject to their approaching this Court with an appropriate explanation, if they so wish.”
Expert Panel Ordered to Vet Textbook
The Court directed the Union government to constitute a committee of domain experts to review the rewritten chapter before it is included in the curriculum.
The Bench suggested that the panel should preferably include a former senior judge, an eminent academic, and a renowned legal practitioner. The Court also recommended that the National Judicial Academy be associated with the review process for sections dealing with the judiciary.
Court Warns Against Misinformation on Social Media
The Bench also took note of the hostile and abusive reactions on social media following the controversy, expressing concern over the spread of misinformation and personal attacks. Observing that the issue had triggered irresponsible commentary online, the Bench said:
“We have noticed the manner in which some elements on social media have reacted irresponsibly. The law must take its own course against such rumour-mongers.”
The Court emphasised that criticism of judicial institutions must remain responsible and informed, cautioning that social media cannot become a platform for reckless allegations or misinformation.
The Bench reiterated that while legitimate debate about institutions is permissible, misinformation and abuse cannot be tolerated, directing the government to ensure that those responsible are traced and appropriate steps are taken in accordance with law.
“We accordingly direct the Government of India to identify those sites, who are the persons behind running those sites, and place their full details before us.”
Clarification on Judicial Criticism
The Court clarified that its concerns were not intended to stifle legitimate academic debate about institutions. It reiterated that healthy and objective criticism of institutional functioning is both permissible and desirable in an academic setting.
“Healthy, objective and legitimate criticism of institutional functioning of the judiciary is welcome,” the Bench said, adding that such a critique could help identify deficiencies and enable corrective measures.