In February, the Supreme Court had observed that a Class 8 textbook chapter, ‘The Role of the Judiciary in our Society’, particularly the sub-topic expounding ‘Corruption in the Judiciary’, was “prima facie intended towards maligning the Indian judiciary”.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
Three educators “blacklisted” by the Supreme Court for preparing a controversial chapter on ‘Corruption in judiciary’ in a Class 8 National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) Social Science textbook have said they are no “fly-by-night academics” and command “street cred”.
Author and scholar Michel Danino, educationist Suparna Divakar and legal researcher Alok Prasanna Kumar urged the court to hear them. All three were part of the Textbook Development Team (TDT) of the NCERT.
Taking suo motu cognisance of the contents of the textbook and while orally remarking that “heads would roll” for portraying the judiciary in a biased manner, the Supreme Court had said the three pedagogues either did not possess “reasonable, informed knowledge about the Indian judiciary and/or deliberately misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of Indian judiciary before Class 8 students who are of an impressionable age”.
“We see no reason as to why this kind of persons be associated in any manner for the purpose of preparation of curriculum or finalisation of textbooks for the next generation of this country. Consequently, we direct the Government of India, State governments/Union Territories, universities and public institutions receiving government funds to disassociate the three of them forthwith and not to assign any responsibility which incurs, fully or partially, public funds,” the court had directed.
It had passed the order without issuing notice to the three educationists or hearing them. The court had, however, given them liberty to approach it for any relief.
“The chapter in the textbook stands substituted. New books would come. But we believe we have something to say,” senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Mr. Kumar, submitted.
“Are you defending your actions?” the Chief Justice queried.
Mr. Sankaranarayanan said he merely wanted to provide context.
“We are giving a context and the pedagogy that has come in the National Education Policy, including other issues. I was there when it was said that the judiciary is being singled out. Classes 6, 7 textbooks deal with issues, obstacles, hurdles, challenges faced by the legislature, the Election Commission and the Executive… We want to show the process followed. These are not fly-by-night academics. These are academics with a lot of street cred,” Mr. Sankaranarayanan submitted.
Senior advocate J. Saideepak Iyer, appearing for Ms. Divakar, said the sum of their submissions was that the preparation of the chapter was a collective process and no individual had sole say or final authority.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar appeared for Mr. Danino, and requested the Bench to hear them.
“”We definitely propose to hear the three of them,” Chief Justice Kant responded.
The government informed the court about the constitution of an expert committee comprising former apex court judge Justice (retired) Indu Malhotra, senior advocate KK Venugopal and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University vice chancellor Prakash Singh, to finalise the NCERT curriculum on Legal Studies for Class 8 and other grades.
In February, the apex court had observed that the textbook chapter ‘The Role of the Judiciary in our Society’, particularly the sub-topic expounding ‘Corruption in the Judiciary’, was “prima facie intended towards maligning the Indian judiciary”. It had initiated contempt proceedings against those behind the lesson.
The court had ordered a “blanket and complete” ban on the Social Science textbook despite the Centre withdrawing over 82,000 copies from circulation.
Published – April 06, 2026 04:50 pm IST
