'Judiciary bleeding, they fired gunshots': Supreme Court issues show-cause notice to NCERT, asks controversial chapter to be taken down

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta tenders unconditional apology on behalf of the NCERT

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday banned the controversial chapter on 'corruption in judiciary' from Class VIII textbook of Social Science introduced by the NCERT, saying a deeper probe was required behind a deep rooted conspiracy to undermine and demean the dignity of the institution.

Taking up a suo motu case, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said, "Judiciary is bleeding today, they fired the gun shots... Heads must roll, we will not close the case. We need to find who is responsible. If allowed to go unchecked, it will erode the sanctity of judicial office.''

The court said such misconduct will fall within the purview of contempt of court and if deliberate, it will amount to interfering with administration of justice.

The court also asked the Union government to take down the chapter from all platforms. It also issued show cause notice to the Secretary of School Education, Ministry of Education and the NCERT Director, as to why action under the Contempt of Courts Act or any other law should not be taken against them.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Centre tendered unconditional apology on behalf of the NCERT. He said the person responsible for it would no longer be associated with it. He also submitted a takedown order would be issued.

He said the books that went in the market were being withdrawn, the entire chapter would be revisited by a team. Mehta admitted that children can't be taught that justice is denied.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A M Singhvi raised questions what about corruptions among politicians and bureaucrats.

The bench, however, said, instead of having an introspection of what had been written in the ''most reckless, motivated and contemptuous manner'', the Director responded in writing defending the contents of the book.

"Prima facie, it seems to us that there is a calculated move to undermine and demean dignity of judiciary. If allowed to go unchecked, it will erode the sanctity of judicial office in estimation of public, while the publication dedicates entire chapter to the role of judiciary and washes of with one stroke the illustrious history of SC, HCs, it has omitted the substantial contributions made by these institutions towards preservation of democratic fabric,'' the bench said.

The court felt text failed to acknowledge the imperative role of judiciary which it undertakes in upholding constitutional morality and basic structure doctrine.

"It seems to us that the narrative contained in the book chooses not to delve into the transformative initiative and measures of this court in overhauling legal aid mechanism and streamlining access to justice. The silence is particularly egregious given the sheer volume of high ranking officials censured by this court for illicit syphoning of public funds, etc,'' the bench sais.

The bench said, the choice of words, expressions in the book may not be a simpliciter inadvertent or bonafide error.

"We don't propose to initiate these proceedings to stifle any legitimate critic or take to task any individual or organization exercising right to scrutinize institutions like judiciary. We are of firm conviction that dissent and rigorous discourse are vital parts of a living democracy and serve as an essential instrument of institutional accountability,'' the bench said.

The court said, students in their formative years are only beginning to navigate nuances of public life.

"It is fundamentally improper to expose them to a biased narrative that may engender permanent misconception at this tender age for the purpose of appreciating the manifold and onerous responsibilities of the judiciary. We have to keep in mind that the subject book is not confined to the students only. It is bound to travel from teacher to pupil and to parents, the next generation,'' the bench said.

The court on Wednesday registered the suo motu case 'In Re: Social Science Text Book for Grade 8 (Part 2) Published by NCERT and Ancillary Issues', after the issue was brought to its attention.

In a post on X, activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan wrote, "Unfortunate that the SC & some senior lawyers took umbrage at the new chapter in the NCERT text book about the Judiciary & that corruption is one of the challenges it faces. Considerable corruption in the judiciary is seen and perceived acutely by litigants."

He said, the Transparency International in 2007 had found the judiciary to be the second most corrupt institution as perceived by the people.

"Several retired judges of the SC have spoken about judicial corruption. Trying to suppress any discussion on this will only increase the perception of corruption in judiciary among the people," Bhushan felt.

The NCERT is an autonomous body, the officials responsible for adding chapters should have applied their minds, the government sources said after the court's rebuke.

The book pegs the approximate number of pending cases in the Supreme Court at 81,000, in High Courts at 62.40 lakh, and in district and subordinate courts at 4.70 crore.

It highlighted the judiciary's internal accountability mechanisms and refers to the established procedure for receiving complaints through the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System.

According to the book, over 1,600 complaints were received through this mechanism between 2017 and 2021.

The textbook also quoted former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, who in July 2025 said that instances of corruption and misconduct within the judiciary had a negative impact on public confidence.