The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling by withdrawing its previous order concerning the controversial NCERT chapter case involving three prominent academics. In a major relief to the individuals involved, the apex court clarified that both the Central and State governments are now free to make their own independent decisions regarding the inclusion of these academics in any future educational or academic work. This decision marks a pivotal shift from the court's earlier stance, which had restricted their participation in various academic projects across the country.
Relief for Academics and Cancellation of Previous Directives
The Supreme Court specifically withdrew its earlier order directed against three academics associated with the controversial judiciary chapter in the NCERT Class 8 textbook. Along with this, the court also cancelled the instructions that barred these academics from being involved in academic projects of government and public educational institutions. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi, delivered this verdict after hearing the petitions filed by Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar. These individuals had approached the court seeking the withdrawal of the order dated March 11, 2026, which had imposed significant professional restrictions on them.
No Malice Found in Chapter Preparation
In its previous order, the Supreme Court had observed that these academics had deliberately misrepresented facts and attempted to present a negative image of the Indian judiciary to Class 8 students. However, in the latest hearing, the court has officially removed these remarks. After a thorough review of the circumstances, the court acknowledged that there was no malice or ill-intention involved in the preparation of the chapter. It was noted that the content was the result of a collective decision-making process rather than the individual act of a single person. Consequently, the court clarified that the Central and State governments can now exercise their own discretion if they wish to engage these academics for any academic assignments in the future.
Arguments Presented by Senior Advocates
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing the petitioners, argued that the order passed on March 11 was issued without giving the academics a fair opportunity to be heard. He emphasized that the material in question wasn't the work of any one individual but was prepared collectively by a group of experts. Adding to this, Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan pointed out that the chapter on the judiciary was designed to build upon the foundation laid in Class 6 and Class 7. He argued that in an era where judicial issues are openly discussed in the media, it's essential for students to understand the true picture and the complexities of the system they live in.
Observations on Content and Future Review
Justice Bagchi, while participating in the discussion, noted that the primary concern was how corruption was portrayed in the book, appearing as if it were a problem specific only to the judiciary. He observed that the chapter lacked mentions of the positive role played by the judiciary and the importance of legal aid services. While the Supreme Court reiterated that some of the content in the book was inappropriate and unnecessary, it acknowledged the steps taken for a formal review. The court mentioned that the Central Government has already constituted an Expert Committee, headed by a former Supreme Court judge, to review the controversial material and ensure its suitability for students. This committee will now oversee the necessary corrections and evaluations of the academic content.