NCERT textbook row | Supreme Court rolls back order blacklisting academics over 'corruption in judiciary' chapter

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday recalled its earlier order that had blacklisted three academics involved in drafting a controversial chapter on corruption in the judiciary in an NCERT Class 8 textbook, allowing central and state institutions to independently decide on associating with them in academic projects.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi expressed satisfaction with the explanation offered by the academics that the chapter was prepared through a collective decision and without any malice.

The ruling is likely to bring relief to the three academics, who had expressed concern over the far-reaching consequences of the earlier order on their professional careers.

The court also expunged the adverse observations made in its March 11 order, in which it had accused the three academics of deliberately misrepresenting facts to project a negative image of the Indian judiciary before Class 8 students.

Acting on applications filed by the academics, the bench made it clear that the Union government and state governments are free to take their own decisions regarding future association with these experts.

The controversy arose over a chapter in the NCERT Class 8 social science textbook that discussed corruption in the judiciary. On March 11, the Supreme Court had directed the Centre and all states to disassociate from the three academics — Michel Danino, Alok Prasanna Kumar, and Suparna Diwakar — citing the “offending” content.

Earlier, on February 26, the top court had imposed a complete ban on the publication, reprinting, or digital dissemination of the textbook.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Michel Danino, argued that the March 11 order was passed without hearing the academics and that the content was not a case of individual authorship but a collective decision of the committee.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Alok Prasanna Kumar, submitted that the Class 8 chapter was a continuation of topics covered in Classes 6 and 7.

He contended that students should be given a realistic understanding of institutions, including their shortcomings, rather than a “white-washed” version.

“There is open discussion in the media about issues affecting the judiciary. These cannot be suppressed from students,” he argued, adding that there was no malicious intent and that open discussions were necessary for finding solutions.

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Suparna Diwakar, highlighted that his client had only a limited role in the drafting and that the order severely affected their right to livelihood.

The bench, however, pointed out that the issue was whether the presentation was balanced.

“Corruption was highlighted as a unique feature of the judiciary. Not a single word about access to legal services or the positive role of judges,” it observed.

The academics claimed that other portions of the book did discuss the contributions of the judiciary.

The court accepted the academics’ contention that they were not “fly-by-night” operators but individuals with established credibility. It withdrew the blacklisting order, noting that the explanation offered was satisfactory.