BREAKING| Supreme Court Lifts Ban On 3 Academics Who Wrote NCERT Chapter On Judiciary, Removes Adverse Comments

The Supreme Court on Friday recalled its previous order banning three academics, who were involved in the preparation of the controversial NCERT Class 8 chapter on corruption in the judiciary, from academic projects of Central or State Universities and public educational institutions.

The Court clarified that the Union and the States may take an independent decision on associating these academics for academic projects.

The Court also expunged the adverse observation made in its March 11 order that the three academics "deliberately and knowingly have misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian Judiciary to students of Class 8."

While reiterating that the chapter was "wholly undesirable", the Court observed : "Owing to the explanation given by the applicants, we deem it appropriate to modify para 8 of the order and recall the direction given to the Government of India/State/UT/Institutions to disassociate the 3 applicants from the academic activities. We leave it to Union/State/other authorities to take an independent decision without being influenced by the observations made in our above-stated order."

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order after considering the applications filed by the academics - Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar- seeking recall of the order. The bench expressed satisfaction with the explanation offered by the academics that there was no malice in preparing the chapter, and that it was finalised following a collective decision.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for Michel Danino, submitted that the March 11 order was passed without hearing them. He clarified that it was not a case of "individual authorship" and was a collective decision. He requested suspending the Court's adverse order, saying that it has "far-reaching consequences."

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for Alok Prasanna Kumar, submitted that the Class 8 chapter on judiciary was a continuation of the chapters in Classes 6 and 7, and said that the Class 8 book also dealt with the issues affecting other areas of administration. Sankaranarayanan submitted that when there is an open discussion in the media about the issues affecting the judiciary, it cannot be suppressed from the students, who should grow with a realistic understanding of the system, with "warts and all." Asserting that there was no malicious intent, Sankaranarayanan said that solutions will come only if we openly discuss issues in schools and universities. He questioned whether the institutions must be "white-washed" before the students.

Justice Bagchi said that the issue was that corruption was presented as a problem unique to the judiciary. "We have to see if it was balanced. On the other hand, corruption was highlighted as a unique feature. Not a single word about access to legal services. Nothing to say about the role of judges in legal services," Justice Bagchi said. Sankaranarayanan added that there were other portions discussing the contributions made by the judiciary.  He also requested the bench to delete the observation in the March 11 order that the academics do not have reasonable knowledge about the judiciary. However, no order in this regard was passed.

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Suparna Diwakar, submitted that his client only had a limited role. He submitted that the Supreme Court's order will affect their right to livelihood.

When the bench agreed to lift the ban on the academics, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the Union Government has decided not to associate these persons in future works. The SG also refuted the claim that it was a collective decision by the academics, saying that the chapter was not placed before all members of the concerned committee, and that it was only emailed to 3-4 members.

During the hearing, the Solicitor General also invited the bench's attention to a cartoon in a Class 11 textbook, and said that it was objectionable. The bench said that the matter can be raised before the expert committee, headed by Justice Indu Malhotra, former Supreme Court Judge, which was constituted to review the chapter on judiciary.

The Court was hearing the suo motu case taken over the NCERT chapter dealing with corruption in the judiciary and judicial delays. The Court had in February ordered a complete ban on the textbooks containing the chapter, and directed its removal.

Case Title: In Re : Social Science Textbook for Grade-8(Part 2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues | SMW (C) 1/2026