NCERT book row: SC modifies order on 3 academicians, says remarks not personal

The Supreme Court on Friday modified its March 11 order that had directed the Centre, states and others to disassociate from three academicians following a row over an NCERT book chapter containing "offending" contents on corruption in the judiciary. The apex court, which considered the explanation given by the three academicians, left it open to the Centre, states, Union Territories, public universities and institutions that receive funds from the central or state governments to take an independent decision on the issue without being influenced by its observations made in the March 11 order. Read Full Story A bench of Chief Justice of India () Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi also recalled a part of the March 11 order that had recorded that the three academicians -- Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar -- had "deliberately and knowingly" misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian judiciary to the students of Class 8. The bench passed the order while hearing an application filed by the three academicians, who explained their stand and said that no individual had the sole say in the drafting of the content and it was a collective process. The court also observed that its comments were made in the context of the contents and not the individuals. On March 11, acting tough against the three experts involved in the drafting of the controversial chapter in the Council of Educational Research and Training's (NCERT) social science book for Class 8, the court had directed the Centre and all states to disassociate from them. It had directed the Centre to form a committee of domain experts within a week for the purpose of finalising the curriculum of the NCERT's legal studies for not only Class 8 but also higher classes. The bench was hearing a suo motu (initiated on its own) case titled "In Re: Social Science textbook for Grade-8 (part-2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues". The court was earlier informed that the chapter was drafted by the textbook development team under Danino's chairmanship and consisted of members Diwakar and Kumar. During the hearing on Friday, the bench said that the offending contents were "wholly undesirable". Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the central government has decided that it would not like to associate with these three academicians in the future. The top law officer said he has come across an instance in another textbook that contains a cartoon which may not be proper for students of impressionable age. The bench said the issue could be brought to the notice of a committee headed by former apex court judge Justice Indu Malhotra. The Centre had last month informed the bench that a committee comprising Justice (retd) Malhotra, former Attorney General and senior advocate KK Venugopal and Professor Prakash Singh, Vice Chancellor of the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, was constituted to review the contents of the revised chapter. Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Danino, referred to the application filed by the academics and urged that the bench may consider deleting the adverse remarks recorded in the March 11 order. The bench observed there was no question of doubting their long journey in the field of academics. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for one of the academicians, said observations made by the apex court have massive impact in the country. He said there was no malicious intent on the part of these academicians. The bench, while referring to the contents in the chapter, said corruption was highlighted as a problem unique to the judiciary. "Rest assured, the observations were on the contents, not on the individuals," the bench observed. On February 26, the apex court imposed a "blanket ban" on any further publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of the NCERT's Class 8 social science textbook that contained the "offending" contents on corruption in the judiciary, saying they have fired a gunshot and the judiciary is "bleeding". Ends Published By: Akshat Trivedi Published On: May 22, 2026 21:44 IST