The Supreme Court of India recalled adverse observations against academicians Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar over an NCERT Class 8 textbook chapter, while retaining criticism that the judiciary-related content remained “wholly undesirable and unnecessary.”
The Supreme Court recalled its earlier observations against three academicians Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar who were recently censured for the content of an NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook chapter they had drafted on corruption in the judiciary.
The recall followed a modification of the Court’s order dated March 11. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi altered the earlier directions and removed the part that had required the government and educational bodies to disassociate themselves from the three authors.
In its updated order, the Court reiterated that the curriculum contained in the Class 8 NCERT textbook chapter was “wholly undesirable and unnecessary.” However, the Court noted that remedial steps were already underway. It said the Government of India had initiated steps by constituting an expert committee headed by a former judge of the Supreme Court to address the issue of insertion of new content relating to the Indian judiciary.
With that context, the Court explained that based on the explanation furnished by the authors it found it appropriate to amend paragraph 8 of the March 11 order. The Court then recalled the direction asking the Union government, State governments, universities and educational institutions to disassociate themselves from the three experts in any capacity in academic activities.
The Court clarified:
“While we reiterate, in no uncertain terms, that the curriculum contained in the Class 8 NCERT textbook was wholly undesirable and unnecessary, remedial steps regarding the insertion of new content relating to the Indian judiciary have already been initiated by the Government of India through the constitution of an expert committee headed by a former judge of this Court. However, in view of the explanation furnished by the applicants, namely the authors, we deem it appropriate to modify paragraph 8 of the order and recall the direction issued to the Government of India, the State Governments, Union Territories, universities, and educational institutions to disassociate themselves from the applicants in academic activities,”
The Bench also left the final decision to the governments and other competent authorities. It expressly stated that those bodies may take an independent call without being influenced by the earlier observations.
The order said,
“In this regard, we leave it open to the Union of India, the State Governments, and other competent authorities to take an independent decision without being influenced by the observations made in paragraph 8 of the aforesaid order,”
The Supreme Court additionally recalled its earlier observation that the three experts had deliberately misrepresented facts in the disputed chapter. It clarified that even the opening part of paragraph 8 referring to deliberate or knowing misrepresentation stood withdrawn.
The Court said in its order today,
“It is further clarified that the opening line of paragraph 8 of the order, to the effect that the three applicants had deliberately or knowingly misrepresented facts, is also recalled in light of the explanation tendered by them,”
Submissions of Parties:
During the hearing on Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said on behalf of the Central government that it would not associate with the three “blacklisted” experts.
He said,
“We will not like to be associated with any such members who drafted that class 8 chapter. I came across one such more instance in the standard 11 textbook. These are cartoons … But for the impressionable age group.. this is not a place for cartoons,”
The Court then directed that the matter may be examined by the three-member committee headed by Justice Malhotra.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Professor Michel Danino, argued that the earlier adverse order had been passed ex-parte without hearing the authors and that it would have “devastating consequences.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing for Alok Prasanna Kumar, submitted that there was no deliberate or malicious intent.
He said,
“It was not deliberate or malicious at all. There are people who come before the media and try to make a big issue out of it. I was present when it was placed before you with a lot of drama and shown in that manner, and naturally everyone was taken aback. In the Class 8 textbook, the first part deals with various issues concerning administration, roads and other civic matters. Then comes the chapter on the judiciary,”
Justice Bagchi indicated that the problem was the alleged lack of balance in the chapter’s presentation of the judiciary. He noted that while challenges in the judiciary were discussed, certain aspects were missing.
Justice Bagchi said,
“We are completely aware of the fact that in some areas, the role of the judiciary has been highlighted and the challenges before the judiciary have also been highlighted. We are not concerned with whether it is positive or negative. We wanted to see whether it was balanced or not, and we felt that it was not balanced. The role of the judiciary and the aspect of constitutional supremacy were missing, whereas corruption was highlighted. What about access to justice and legal aid? There was not a single word about them,”
Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Suparna Diwakar, objected to how the matter had been reported, saying it sounded like personal targeting rather than critique of the instance.
“The way it has been reported (in press), it is as if it’s an aspersion on the individual.”
Justice Bagchi responded that the observations were made with respect to the instance and not individuals, and noted the Court could not control media perceptions.
Justice Bagchi replied,
“The dialogue which happens between the senior counsel and the judge should not be part of any media report. But we don’t have any control over reportage. Our observations were only on the instance and not Individuals. We cannot help you with perceptions or what people think about you,”
Facts of the Case:
The petition comes on the heels of the Court’s February 26 order in a suo motu matter where it took strong exception to content in a different Class 8 Social Science book, Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Vol. 2). In that case, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant issued contempt notices to the Department of School Education and the NCERT Director over a chapter on “corruption in judiciary.” The Court warned that if the material was found to be a deliberate attempt to interfere with the administration of justice, it could amount to criminal contempt.
The current plea targets a passage on page 62 of Social and Political Life – III, in a chapter addressing the “judiciary’s role and the right to livelihood“. The contested sentence reads that “recent judgments tend to view the slum dweller as an encroacher in the city.”
Earlier Issues and Court Order on NCERT books:
Earlier, the Supreme Court had expressed strong disapproval regarding certain segments of a newly released Class 8 Social Science textbook by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) that mention “corruption in the judiciary.”
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant stated that the Court is taking suo motu notice of this issue.
CJI Kant stated,
“Bar and bench all are perturbed. All High Court judges are perturbed. I will take up the matter suo motu. I will not allow anybody to defame the institution. Law will take its course,”
As reported by media the textbook contains a section devoted to “corruption in the judiciary” within a chapter discussing “The role of the judiciary in our society.” This chapter outlines various forms of judicial corruption and mentions significant challenges faced by the judicial system, such as a backlog of cases due to insufficient judges, complex legal procedures, and inadequate infrastructure.
In a press release, NCERT had expressed its regret for the error of judgment committed by keeping chapter titled ‘Role of the Judiciary in Our Society’ in the revised Class VIII civics, which went beyond explaining the hierarchy of courts and access to justice. and offered its apologies, reaffirming its commitment to uphold institutional sanctity and respect.
It also said that upon reviewing the copies of Chapter 4, titled “The Role of Judiciary in our Society” (pp. 125–142), found certain inappropriate content and an error of judgment for which the Department of School Education & Literacy (Ministry of Education) flagged the same concern and directed that further distribution of the book be suspended until further notice. NCERT has complied with this instruction.
National Council of Educational Research & Training also clarified that it holds the judiciary in the highest regard and views it as the guardian of the Constitution and protector of fundamental rights. The inclusion of the objectionable material was entirely inadvertent, and it regrets the lapse.
NCERT emphasized that the aim of the new textbooks is to promote constitutional awareness, respect for institutions, and an informed appreciation of democratic participation among students.
There was no intention to challenge or undermine the authority of any constitutional body. NCERT welcomed constructive feedback as part of its ongoing review process and will revise the chapter after consulting the appropriate authorities.
The corrected material will be made available to Class 8 students at the start of the 2026–27 academic session.
Previously, The Central government had decided to remove references to “corruption at various levels of the judiciary” from the NCERT Class VIII textbook, according to high-level government sources. The move comes after strong objections were raised by members of the legal fraternity and concerns were expressed in the Supreme Court of India.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE