.jpg)
Supreme Court Closes Case on NCERT Textbook, Says Criticism of Judiciary Must Be Fair and Through Appropriate Channel
The Supreme Court has closed its suo motu review on the NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook case, referring to “the phenomenon of corruption in the judiciary”, and made a key distinction between criticism and unfounded statements. The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana stated that the judiciary cannot be against criticism. However, they stated that constructive criticism, which is informed and raised through constructive criticism, must be done through an appropriate channel and in a civil manner.
The Court also stated that the case can be closed as the textbook in question had already been replaced by the expert committee, and the revised version of the books had already been published.
Supreme Court of India on Controversial NCERT Textbook Scrutiny: What Does The Order Say?
The Court's latest order does not say that criticism of the judiciary is impermissible. Rather, it distinguishes criticism and unsupported statements. As per the September 1 order, fair and constructive review of judicial workings is consonant with the spirit of a democratic constitutional system of accountability and introspection.
The Court's concern is not whether the judiciary can be criticised; rather, it is what methodology and what standards can be employed to inform school children about the criticism of the judicial system.
Why Was the NCERT Textbook Case Before the Supreme Court?
The case began when parts of a Class 8 Social Science textbook referred to the judiciary and corruption. On February 26, 2026, the Supreme Court prohibited additional publication, reprints, and the digital publication of the textbook containing the challenged content. The Court called the textbook material a "lassoi" against the dignity of the judiciary.
Soon, the issue expanded to include opinion on academic freedom, the proper scope of the judiciary in overseeing the curriculum, the boundaries on critical opinion to be expressed on constitutional institutions, and the quality of curriculum.
The Court had made some orders in the case of the three academics allegedly involved in the drafting of the content of the chapter. However, subsequently, some of the comments made in the case were modified.
Supreme Court Clarifies Earlier Remarks on Academics
The three academics named in the case were Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar. They accounted for the content created and said that drafting was done by a team, and thus, no single individual could be held responsible. The Court recalled a statement from its order of March 11, which said that the academics had deliberately and with knowledge misrepresented facts in an attempt to criticise the judiciary.
The Court stated that certain comments made in the earlier order were in reference to the content of the textbook, and should not be considered judgment against the individuals.
What Happened to the Controversial Chapter?
The Centre convened an expert panel to examine the disputed material. The panel was led by Justice Indu Malhotra and the other members were senior advocate K K Venugopal and Professor Prakash Singh. Following the review, the disputed chapter was revised. The government informed the Supreme Court that new textbooks containing the revised version were already in circulation.
The Court noted the revised chapter, apologies tendered by NCERT officials, and the expert review to indicate that the objective of the suo motu proceedings had been largely met.
What the Supreme Court's Order Means for Students and Educators
An unresolved question for education is how disputed institutional issues should be taught to school children. The latest comments by the Supreme Court signal that criticism in and of itself is not a matter of concern. What is concerned is the accuracy, context and verification and an appropriate mechanism for publishing the criticism.
The episode is also a reminder for curriculum developers, teachers and education policymakers of the responsibility they have when teaching young learners about sensitive constitutional and institutional issues.
Final Thoughts
The NCERT textbook case has come to a close after months of legal proceedings. The case went beyond a single textbook paragraph and shed light on the balance between the responsibilities of academia and the judiciary, as well as the dignity of institutions, and the vein of criticism that is healthy and constructive within a democracy. The opinion of the Supreme Court extends beyond the simplification of the phrase, “You can't criticise.” Judicial institutions deserve their fair share of questioning and appropriate criticism, but it should not be done irresponsibly.
The legal aspect of the case has been settled with the new textbook, however the larger debate of how India's institutions should be addressed in the classroom will continue far beyond this case.
Click Here for More Latest News