A small section on judicial corruption in a brand new NCERT textbook has triggered a storm.
The SC has not merely ordered the textbook to be removed from bookstores, it has also banned it entirely, initiated a suo motu case, and warned that “heads must roll”.
What started as a curriculum rollout under the new National Education Policy has quickly turned into one of the sharpest confrontations between the judiciary and an educational body in recent memory.
At the heart of it is a chapter titled ‘The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society’ in the Class 8 NCERT Social Sciences textbook, released on February 24. The chapter included references to corruption within the judiciary, a heavy backlog of cases, and an inadequate number of judges.
The Supreme Court’s problem: these ideas were being introduced to 13-14-year-old children.
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal brought the matter to the court’s notice. Chief Justice Surya Kant was immediately incensed, initiating a suo motu case and asserting that the court won’t allow anyone to “defame the institution”.
The context here matters. This development comes on the heels of the Centre revealing that the CJI’s office received around 7,500 complaints against judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts between 2016 and 2025.
The NCERT moved quickly after the court’s sharp remarks, withdrawing the textbook and trying to retrieve the 38 copies already sold out of the 2.25 lakh printed. It also issued an apology, calling the “error” “unintentional” and promising the portion would be “rewritten”.
The Supreme Court wasn’t satisfied. It called the episode a “deep-rooted conspiracy” and issued show-cause notices to the Secretary of School Education, the Ministry of Education, and the NCERT director.
Then came Thursday’s hearing, where the court escalated further. It ordered the seizure of every physical copy and imposed a complete ban on publication and digital circulation.
Ensure that all copies of the book, hard copy or soft copy, whether held in retail outlets or schools are removed from public access, the CJI said. A compliance report has been sought in two weeks.
The court also made clear that even where a copy exists, it cannot be used. No instruction is to be imparted on the basis of either the physical or digital version of the book, meaning teachers cannot use it in classrooms under any circumstance.
As an “abundant caution”, a blanket ban on production and distribution was also imposed. Any attempt to distribute the textbook — physically or digitally — would be treated as a wilful breach of court orders.
The NCERT Director Dinesh Prasad Saklani has reportedly been made personally responsible for ensuring the seizure of all copies sent to schools.
Principal Secretaries of Education across all states have been directed to implement the order and submit compliance reports within two weeks. The message from the court is unambiguous: the withdrawal must not remain symbolic.
The court also wants to know who wrote the chapter. It has directed the NCERT Director to furnish the names and credentials of members of the National Syllabi Board involved in drafting it, along with the original minutes of the meetings where the chapter was deliberated and finalised. Both are to be produced at the next hearing.
A show cause notice has been issued to the Secretary of the Department of School Education and to NCERT Director Dr Dinesh Prasad Saklani, asking why action, including under the Contempt of Courts Act, should not be taken against those responsible for the “offending” chapter.
“We would like to have a deeper probe. We need to find who is responsible… Heads must roll! We will not close the case,” CJI Kant said.
On the NCERT’s claim that it was a bona fide error, the court was unconvinced. “It seems to us that there is a calculated move to undermine institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary,” it said. It did, however, clarify that its directions were not meant to stifle “legitimate criticism” of the judiciary.
In court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, offered an apology and assured the bench that the two officials who prepared the chapter would never work with UGC or any ministry again. Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi suggested the move may have been deliberate.
“The selectivity, my lord. Corruption is there in other areas also,” he said. Kapil Sibal, also present, added, “What about politicians and leaders?”
What began as a textbook controversy has now become a case involving compliance deadlines, personal accountability, and the very real prospect of contempt proceedings.
Also Read: After Being In Ten Worst Performing States In School Education, Is Gujarat Taking The Right Step? https://www.vibesofindia.com/after-being-in-ten-worst-performing-states-in-school-education-is-gujarat-taking-the-right-step/
