The Supreme Court of India on Thursday banned a Class 8 Social Science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training after taking strong exception to a chapter referring to “judicial corruption.” The court ordered an immediate halt to publication, re-printing, and digital circulation of the material, directing authorities to seize all existing copies without delay.
Chief Justice Surya Kant, who led the proceedings, described the publication as a serious act of misconduct that could amount to criminal contempt if found to be a deliberate attempt to scandalise the judiciary. The court made it clear that it intends to conduct a deeper probe into how the chapter was conceived, approved, and distributed, warning that responsibility must be fixed at the highest levels.
The bench issued a contempt notice to NCERT Chairman Dinesh Prasad Saklani and also summoned the Secretary of School Education, signalling that the matter could move beyond academic oversight into legal liability. The Chief Justice stated that as head of the judiciary, ensuring accountability was a duty he would not compromise, remarking that the court would not close proceedings until those responsible were identified.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, tendered an unconditional apology on behalf of the Ministry of Education. However, the court expressed dissatisfaction with a prior communication from NCERT, noting the absence of any apology and accusing the body instead of attempting to justify the controversial content.
The Chief Justice used unusually sharp language to convey the court’s concern, saying the judiciary appeared to have been targeted by a “calculated move” and likening the episode to a gunshot that left the institution “bleeding.” He further observed that the issue raised serious questions about intent and warned against any narrative that could undermine public confidence in the justice system.
The controversy first intensified a day earlier when the court criticised the chapter as presenting a biased portrayal of the judiciary and cautioned that it would not allow attempts to defame or erode the integrity of one of the country’s foundational institutions. With the seizure order now in effect and contempt proceedings underway, the case is poised to become a landmark confrontation between judicial authority and academic content regulation in India.
