The SC order in the NCERT textbook case Impinge on Academic Freedom

By Joseph Maliakan

As a reporter who has witnessed the continuous erosion of academic freedoms in our educational institutions , one can conclude that the Supreme Court’s reaction to the publication of a class VIII textbook containing a chapter on judicial corruption , published by the National Council of Educational Research and training ( NCERT) has been too harsh and a severe blow to right to free speech. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice of India , Surya Kant, without even issuing a notice to the Government of India or the NCERT on 26 February 2026 imposed a complete ban on the publication , reprinting and dessimination of the book. The court also ordered the immediate seizure of all physical and digital copies of the book. The Supreme Court described the inclusion of this topic as a ” calculated move to undermine the institution and a ” deep rooted conspiracy.” The matter came to light on February 24 when the Indian Express, Delhi edition published a report with the headline ” NCERT’s new Class 8 book lists ‘ corruption in judiciary ‘ , ‘ massive backlog ‘ as challenges. ” Corruption in judiciary ” formed part of a chapter on ” The role of the judiciary in our society.” The section listed ” corruption at the various levels of the judiciary and ” massive backlog …on account of multiple reasons such as lack of adequate number of judges , complicated legal procedures and poor infrastructure ” as among the challenges faced by the judicial system. The old textbook described role of the judiciary , the importance of an independent judiciary , the structure of the courts and access to them . There was no reference to corruption. However, it did refer to the inordinate delay in the Indian courts that causes denial of justice to the common people because ” Justice delayed is justice denied.” The new chapter lists the pending cases in the Supreme Court, 81, 000 ; High Courts , 62,40,000 and the district and subordinate courts , 4,70, 00, 000. The section on corruption in the judiciary , the Indian Express report said stated that the judges are bound by a code of conduct that governs not only their behaviour in court , but also how they conduct themselves outside it. It also described the judiciary’s internal mechanism to maintain accountability and an established procedure for receiving complaints through the Centralised Public Grievance Redress And Monitoring System ( CPGRAMS ) . And over 1600 complaints were received between 2017 and 2021, the chapter added. In cases where the allegations are serious the Parliamnet can take action and remove a judge by passing a motion of impeachment .Such a motion is considered only after a proper enquiry during which the judge is given a fair opportunity to present his or her side of the case, the new chapter added. ” Nevertheless , people do experience corruption at various levels of the judiciary. For the poor and disadvantaged this can worsen the issue of access to justice . Hence efforts are constantly being made at the State and Union levels to build faith and increase transparency in the judicial system, including through the use of technology, and to take swift and decisive action against instances of corruption wherever they may arise.” the chapter added. It also quoted former Chief Justice of India , B.R.Gavai who in July 2025 said : ” Sadly there have been instances of corruption and misconduct that have surfaced even within the judiciary . Such occurances inevitably have a negative impact on public confidence , potentially eroding faith in the integrity of the system as a whole. ” However the path to rebuilding this trust lies in the swift , decisive and transparent action taken to address and resolve these issues… Any erosion of this confidence risks weakening the judiciary’s constitutional role as the ultimate arbiter of rights. Transparency and accountability are democratic virtues “. Ghavai had added according to the quote. Following the discussion on ” Why is an independent judiciary needed for justice the lesson asks the students to discuss two recent important rulings of the Supreme Court of India made, one on the Electoral Bonds and another on the amendment to the Information Technology Act. 2009. The lesson stated that in 2018 the Union government introduced Electoral Bonds to raise funds for political parties .The scheme facilitated inviduals and companies to donate money anonimously to political parties. Issued by banks the electoral bonds could only be encashed by political parties that met certain criteria. However , the Supreme Court of India struck down the scheme as unconstitutional maintaining that the voters have a right to know who is funding the political parties. On the Information Technology Act 2009, the class 8 textbook explains that a few years after the Act was passed the Union government amened the Act adding a clause to prosecute and jail for varying periods for posts made on the internet or social media. In 2015 a law student challenged the amendment in the Supreme Court arguing that it violated freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution , and the Supreme Court set it aside as unconstitutional. The lesson asks the students to analyse the judgements in both cases in detail. While it is debatable whether class 8 students are equiped to study and comment on such important constitutional issues by no strech of imagination can any one hold the writers of such lessons in contempt of court. The lession in question actually quotes none other than a former Chief justice of India B.R.Gavai to substantiate the problem of corruption in the judiciary. One wonders how could the Supreme Court hold the words of a former Chief Justice of India in contempt. Further the Supreme Court on Wedneday 11 March 2026 directed the Centre and the NCERT to exclude the three experts , Professor Michel Danino, Educator Suparna Dewakar and leagal expert Alok Prasana Kumar , from any role in preparing school curriculum or holding any position in state bodies , following their association with the class 8 textbook. That such a ban has been imposed on the three renowned academics without even hearing them , this obviously violates natural justice, because these academics cannot be treated as mere pushovers. One saving grace in the SC order in the textbook case is its observation that the judiciary was not averse to objective and legitimate criticism about its institutional functioning . ” If the judiciary like any other institution , is suffering from deficiencies and if an expert committee highlights such deficiencies , it would be a welcome step , not only for the future generations of this nation , including the future practitioners , it would open an avenue for the present stakeholders to take necessary remedial steps ” the Supreme Court said.