New Delhi, March 11, 2026: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday strongly criticised the authors of a Class 8 NCERT social science chapter related to the judiciary, observing that they demonstrated poor judgment and were not fit to prepare textbooks for the next generation. The Court directed that the three individuals involved should not be associated with future curriculum development or textbook preparation.

The Court passed a stringent order against Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar, who were involved in drafting a chapter discussing corruption in the judiciary in an NCERT political science textbook.

In its order dated March 11, the Court instructed the Union Government, state governments, universities, and all publicly funded institutions to disassociate from the three authors and refrain from engaging them in any academic work funded by public money.

Case Originated from Suo Motu Proceedings

The matter arose from a suo motu case initiated by the Supreme Court concerning the content of the chapter in the Class 8 NCERT political science textbook. The Court examined whether the chapter misrepresented the functioning of the Indian judiciary and whether proper procedures were followed during its drafting and approval.

During the hearing, the Bench also reviewed the steps taken by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to revise the controversial chapter.

Court Expresses Dissatisfaction with NCERT's Response

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the affidavit submitted by the NCERT Director, which stated that Chapter 8 had already been rewritten and would be implemented in the upcoming academic session.

However, the Court observed that the affidavit lacked important details, including:

• The subject experts who rewrote the chapter
• The authority that approved the revised version
• The process followed to include it in the curriculum

The Bench described the response as “disturbing”, noting that such a significant academic revision lacked transparency. The Court questioned how the revised chapter could be introduced without clarity regarding the experts involved and the approval process.

Nationwide Disassociation Order

The Supreme Court issued a clear directive stating that:

• The Union Government, state governments, and publicly funded institutions must disassociate from the three individuals.
• They should not be engaged in any publicly funded academic work.
• They must not be involved in curriculum development or textbook preparation in the future.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India raised concerns about the broader academic impact of individuals with questionable academic judgment occupying leadership roles.

“What if they are made Vice-Chancellor of a university at some point? That will affect thousands of students,” the Court observed.

The Bench further stated that individuals who either lack reasonable knowledge of the Indian judiciary or misrepresent facts should not be associated with preparing curriculum for young students.

However, the Court clarified that the authors may approach the Supreme Court seeking modification of the order after submitting their response.

Supreme Court Orders Expert Committee to Rewrite Chapter

The Court also directed NCERT to ensure that the chapter is rewritten through a proper expert-led process.

The revised chapter must be prepared by a committee comprising:

• A retired judge
• A practising advocate
• A senior academician

The committee has also been asked to seek assistance from the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, to ensure accuracy and balanced representation of the judiciary.

The Court further directed that the revised chapter should not be included in textbooks until it is reviewed and approved by such a committee of domain experts.

Concerns Over Drafting Process

The Court took note of submissions indicating that the chapter was drafted by a textbook development team chaired by visiting professor Michel Danino, with Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar assisting in the drafting process.

It was also submitted that the draft curriculum was supposed to be reviewed by the 19-member National Syllabus and Textbook Committee (NSTC). However, the controversial chapter was not presented before the full committee for discussion.

Instead, the draft was reportedly circulated digitally among a limited number of members, bypassing the full review process.

Strong Observations by the Bench

The Supreme Court made strong observations regarding the authors’ approach. It noted that the three individuals either lacked adequate understanding of the Indian judiciary or deliberately misrepresented facts, thereby creating a negative and misleading portrayal of the judiciary for Class 8 students.

The Court emphasised that students at an impressionable age must not be exposed to distorted representations of constitutional institutions.

The ruling sends a strong message regarding academic accountability, transparency, and responsible curriculum development, highlighting the importance of ensuring that educational content presented to school students is accurate, balanced, and properly vetted by experts.

Click Here for More Latest News