Supreme Court Imposes Life Ban on Three Academics Over NCERT Textbook Content
The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment on Wednesday, imposing a life ban on three academics for their role in drafting a Class 8 NCERT textbook chapter that mentioned "corruption in the judiciary." The court held them responsible for "projecting a negative image of the judiciary" and directed all government-funded institutions to sever ties with them immediately.
Unconditional Apology from NCERT Officials
NCERT director Dinesh Prasad Saklani and school education secretary Sanjay Kumar tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology to the Supreme Court for what they termed a "major and unpardonable lapse." They assured the court that preventive measures would be implemented to avoid such incidents in the future.
The controversial chapter, titled "The Role of Judiciary in Our Society," was drafted by a Textbook Development Team chaired by Prof Michel Danino, with members Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar. NCERT confirmed that these three individuals would no longer be associated with any of its activities.
Court's Stern Rebuke and Directives
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi expressed strong disapproval, stating that the academics "either had no reasonable knowledge about the judiciary or deliberately and knowingly misrepresented facts." The bench emphasized that such content could negatively influence students at an impressionable age.
The court ordered the Union government to identify "social media mischief mongers" who endorsed the objectionable content to malign the judiciary. It warned that stringent action would be taken against these individuals, asserting that "the law must take its own course."
Window for Modification and Broader Implications
While imposing the ban, the Supreme Court left a window open for the three academics to seek modification of the order by approaching the court with an explanation. However, it directed all governments, states, Union territories, universities, and public institutions receiving government funds to immediately disassociate from them.
The bench clarified that its orders are not intended to stifle objective and legitimate criticism of the judiciary. It acknowledged that the judiciary, like any institution, has deficiencies and welcomed expert committees highlighting these for corrective measures.
Concerns Over NCERT's Handling and Future Steps
The court disapproved of NCERT's stance that the controversial chapter had been "duly rewritten," calling it a series of "hasty acts" that complicated the issue. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court that nothing from the original chapter would be included in the new textbook.
Expressing surprise, the bench noted that the National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee lacked a jurist or legal expert. It mandated that the revised chapter must be approved by a committee of domain experts, including a former judge, eminent academician, and renowned law practitioner. The court suggested involving the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal to finalize the legal studies curriculum for Class 8 and higher classes.
This ruling underscores the Supreme Court's firm stance on protecting the judiciary's image while balancing the need for constructive criticism and educational integrity.
