Class 8 NCERT judiciary row: Class 8 book withdrawn, centre apologises to SC- What we know so far

 

A brief section on “corruption in the judiciary” in a newly released Class 8 NCERT Social Sciences textbook has led to an unprecedented intervention by the Supreme Court.

The court has barred the circulation of the content, ordered the seizure of physical copies, and imposed a complete ban on the publication and digital distribution of the book introduced under the National Education Policy (NEP). A compliance report has been sought within two weeks.

Here is what has happened so far.

The chapter at the centre

- The controversy centres on a chapter titled ‘The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society’, released on February 24. The text reportedly referred to corruption within the judiciary, a heavy backlog of cases, and a shortage of judges.

- The Supreme Court took objection to the manner in which the judiciary was being presented to 13–14-year-old students.

- Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal brought the matter to the court’s attention. Chief Justice Surya Kant initiated a suo motu case, stating that the court would not allow anyone to “defame the institution”.

NCERT’s initial move

- Following the court’s remarks, NCERT withdrew the textbook and halted its sale. Of the 2.25 lakh copies printed, 38 had already been sold. The council began retrieving those copies and later issued an apology, calling the “error” “unintentional” and stating that the portion would be “rewritten”.

However, the court went further.

“Ensure that all copies of the book, hard copy or soft copy, whether held in retail outlets or schools is removed from public access,” the CJI said.

- The bench also issued a show-cause notice to the Secretary of School Education, the Ministry of Education and NCERT director Dr Dinesh Prasad Saklani. Proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act were initiated.

Court seeks accountability

- The court has sought details of the members of the National Syllabi Board who drafted the chapter and indicated that a deeper probe may follow.

“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.

- The bench observed that the wording did not appear to be a “bonafide error”. “It seems to us that there is a calculated move to undermine institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary,” it said.

At the same time, the court clarified that its directions were not meant to stifle “legitimate criticism” of the judiciary.

The government's response in court

- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta apologised on behalf of the Centre and assured the bench that the two officials involved in preparing the chapter would never work with UGC or any ministry again.

- During the hearing, senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi remarked, “The selectivity, my lord. Corruption is there in other areas also,” while Kapil Sibal added, “What about politicians and leaders?”