The Supreme Court has closed the suo motu proceedings concerning a controversial chapter on “Corruption in the Judiciary” that appeared in the NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook, Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Part 2). The decision came after the court was informed that the disputed chapter had been withdrawn and replaced following revisions recommended by an expert panel constituted by the Centre. The new version of the textbook is now in circulation.
The controversy began in February 2026 after reports highlighted the contents of Chapter 4 of the textbook, titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society.” The chapter referred to issues including corruption at different levels of the judiciary, a substantial backlog of cases, shortage of judges, complicated legal procedures and inadequate infrastructure as challenges faced by the judicial system. Taking note of the matter, the Supreme Court had expressed serious concern and observed that the contents appeared to have the effect of undermining the dignity and reputation of the judiciary.
The court subsequently directed that copies of the textbook containing the disputed material be withdrawn from circulation. NCERT Director Professor Dinesh Prasad Saklani tendered an unconditional apology on behalf of himself and NCERT and stated that the inclusion of the objectionable material was an inadvertent error of judgment. The proceedings also raised questions regarding the role of the three academicians associated with preparation of the chapter—Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar.
In an earlier order, the Supreme Court had directed that government departments, universities and educational institutions disassociate themselves from the three experts. However, that direction was subsequently recalled after the experts challenged it, contending that they had been adversely affected without being given an opportunity to present their case. The Court also later recalled an observation suggesting that the experts had deliberately misrepresented facts in the textbook.
During the latest hearing, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar sought clarification regarding certain observations recorded in the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated May 22. He pointed out that a submission concerning the textbook’s approval process had been recorded without the academicians’ response. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified the position on behalf of the Centre.
The Supreme Court ultimately clarified that the disputed statements referred to in the May 22 order were submissions made by the parties and were not findings or observations of the Court. With this clarification, the Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana formally disposed of the suo motu proceedings.
