“Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence they ever existed. Don’t be afraid to go in your library and read every book.”
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States (1953-1961)
The history of banning books and regulating their content as ‘speech’ after the promulgation of Constitution of India, 1950 has been one of disappointment and of constitutional confusion, if not chaos. Having adopted and incorporated one of the leaves of First Amendment to the US Constitution, the cherished rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the newly promulgated Constitution was a profound moment. The provision has been the subject matter of interpretation in more than hundreds of cases by the Supreme Court of India. However, the common thread which runs through these dictums is of ‘judicial convenience’ rather than principle. These precedents cause more confusion than an exercise of constitutional interpretation.
The controversy
The recent judicial ban on the NCERT textbook and its content which was duly approved by the regulatory body and publisher as part of the school curriculum is unique and first of its kind. On 23 February, 2026, the NCERT’s new social science book introduced a chapter on the ‘Judiciary in India’ as part of its ongoing new pedagogical reform for Class VIII students. It highlighted the pendency of cases, judicial backlog, and judicial corruption – as some of the problems being faced by the Indian judicial system.
The sub-topic ‘Corruption in the Judiciary’ caught the attention of the Supreme Court as well as some members of the Bar. The Court through its administrative apparatus sought to verify the content of the said textbook and sought an explanation from the director of the NCERT. The said explanation has been referred to and dealt with briefly by the Court in its order.
Supreme Court’s February 26 order
The Court took cognizance of the issue, i.e. In re: Social Science Textbook For Grade -8 (Part -2) published by NCERT and Ancillary issues on February 26 and passed an immediate order directing to withdraw and remove the book (physical or digital) from public access, and to seize all the copies without further delay. Finally, it banned the said book from public access.
The draconian order/direction(s) as passed by the Court is sought to be justified in the name of (a) institutional autonomy while functioning in concert to preserve the democratic fabric of nation (b) separation of power (c) pedagogical suitability on inclusion of sub-topics like ‘Corruption in the Judiciary’ (d) the underlying agenda to undermine the institutional authority and demean the dignity of judiciary (e) the impact and impression which would be casted on the minds of the youth (f) to safeguard the pedagogical integrity of the national curriculum.
The order further attributes fault to the author and to NCERT, as publisher, for allegedly failing to acknowledge the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional morality and safeguarding the basic structure doctrine; for omitting what it describes as the judiciary’s substantive contributions to preserving the democratic fabric; and for not highlighting the transformative initiatives undertaken by the Supreme Court in expanding legal aid and strengthening access to justice.
NCERT and its legal status
The NCERT is an autonomous organisation set up in 1961 by the Government of India to assist and advise the Central and State Governments on policies and programmes for qualitative improvement in school education. The issue as whether NCERT is ‘State’ for the purpose of Article 12 or not, was considered by the Court in the decision of Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT (1980). Unfortunately, for a bizarre reason and logic, the Supreme Court in its judgment held that it is not ‘State’ under Article 12. It observed as under:
“Article 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of expression ‘State’. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. It must not be lost sight of that in the modern concept of Welfare State; independent institution, corporation and agency are generally subject to State control. The State control does not render such bodies as ‘State’ under Article 12. The State control, however, vast and pervasive is not determinative. The financial contribution by the State is also not conclusive. The combination of State aid coupled with an unusual degree of control over the management and policies of the body, and rendering of an important public service being the obligatory functions of the State may largely point out that the body is ‘State’. If the Government operates behind a corporate veil, carrying out govern- mental activity and governmental functions of vital public importance, there may be little difficulty in identifying the body as ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.”
Perhaps, the division bench deciding the above issue gave importance to ‘unique autonomous structure of NCERT’ and wanted to operate independently of prevailing political discourse in an independent manner in sync with its objective, i.e. the cultivation of young minds.
The NCERT withdrew the said textbook immediately and also issued a media advisory requesting that any content related to the chapter “Role of Judiciary in Our Society” if posted on any of the social media or digital platforms may be deleted at the earliest possible. It also sought the return of purchased textbooks from anywhere to return to the NCERT.
The purpose of school education
Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the US (1953- 1961), who was also the President of Columbia University (1948-1953) once remarked about the general purpose of education as under:
"The principal purpose of education is to prepare the student for effective personal and social life in a free society. From the school at the crossroads to a university as great as Columbia, general education for citizenship must be the common and first purpose of them all."
Schools providing education are vitally important in preparing young people towards participation as citizens, and are important vehicles for inculcating fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system.
While considering the issue of basic education as a fundamental right the Supreme Court of India, in Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P (1993). has opined as under:
“The fundamental purpose of education is the same at all times and in all places. It is to transfigure the human personality into a pattern of perfection through a synthetic process of the development of the body, the enrichment of the mind, the sublimation of the emotions and the illumination of the spirit. Education is a preparation for a living and for life, here and hereafter.”
Providing education with a purpose of cultivation of mind remains one of the cherished functions of the State in contemporary times. The US Supreme Court emphasised the right to education and its purpose in following words:
“Today, education is perhaps the most important function of the state and........ It is required in the performance of our most basic responsibilities…. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is the principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.”
Banning of textbooks in School – the US experience
The US Supreme Court has clearly enunciated following principle(s) of law while dealing with similar cases of ‘book/ textbook ban from the school and its library’:-
The First Amendment imposes limitations upon exercise of discretion to remove books from school or its libraries (as held in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)).
Students do not shed their constitutional rights or fundamental rights to freedom of speech or expression at the gates of the school (as held in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)).
A student's First Amendment Right must be construed “in light of the special characteristics of the school and its libraries – a place of learning, understanding, debate and consequently awakened citizenry.”
The regulatory bodies/ authorities may not remove books / textbooks from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books (as held in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)).
However, it has also recognised that there is a legitimate and substantial community interest in promoting respect for authority and traditional values be they social, moral, or political.
The Supreme Court of India, in its order of February 26 has also viewed the publication of ‘undesirous content’ in the textbook as some deeper conspiracy to undermine its authority and dignity, as under:
“On a prima facie examination of the book’s contents, when read in conjunction with the administrative response received from the Directive, NCERT, reveals a discernible underlying agenda to undermine the institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary. This would, if allowed to go unchecked, erode the sanctity of the judicial office in the estimation of the public at large, more importantly, within the impressionable minds of the youth.”
Analysing the Supreme Court’s February 26 order
A careful reading of the order of February 26, as passed by the Supreme Court would indicate that the Court has pre-judged the issue and formed the opinion. The publication of the NCERT text book and inclusion of sub-topic ‘Corruption in the Judiciary’ was, according to the Court, reckless, irresponsible, contemptuous, and has been done in a motivated manner. The Supreme Court expected the NCERT to do some kind of‘introspection before defending the contents of the book as truth.
Usually, the constitutional courts do not intervene in the daily operations of the school system or curriculum after the approval of an expert body (like NCERT in the present case) unless some basic constitutional values are sharply implicated. Essentially, the Supreme Court by its February 26 order has entered not only the ‘school system’, but it also seems at first glance that the bench has intruded into the classroom and compulsory courses taught there. The book in question was not merely a recommended book or a book meant for libraries in the school(s); rather it was effectively meant for classroom teaching as part of curriculum.
The discussion, debate or simply passing on the relevant information inside the classroom to the students – how the young mind would perceive those ideas, information or even would evaluate in their mind – is not something that can be ascertained in the courtrooms of the Supreme Court. The student’s liberty of conscience and inquiry cannot be restricted arbitrarily or curtailed in the name of ‘national unity’ or ‘patriotism’ (this is also something the US Supreme Court noted in West Virginia Board of Education).
The content highlighting the issues of corruption in judiciary, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), backlog and pendency of cases, and access to justice, to students in Grade 8, should not be a cause of worry. Any such debate, discussion or exchange of ideas would strengthen the democratic polity of the nation. Freedom of speech & expression as guaranteed by the Constitution of India is not only a tool and means of individual self- expression, but also protects and facilitates public access to discussion, debate and the dissemination of information and ideas. It protects the right to receive ‘(mis)information’ and ‘ideas’ as a corollary to the rights of free speech and press.
Students and young adults (specially of class 8, who would read NCERT textbook) should not be subject to limited access to (mis)information and circumscribed as closed-circuit recipients of only that information about the judiciary which the judges of the Supreme Court think ‘fit’ to be communicated, i.e. glorifying the institution of judiciary based on its dignity, institutional integrity and separation of powers.
The power of ‘contempt’ cannot be a tool in armoury against the free, frank discussion or learning taking place in the classrooms on social and legal issues which seeks to highlight the existing realities.
Concluding remarks
The students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding in a fast changing world of (mis)information. The ‘school premise’ including its classrooms, libraries, discussion and debate hall(s) is one of such protected spaces. There exists a duty to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform (as laid down in Article 51A(h) of the Constitution); and also to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement (as laid down in Article 51A(j).
While a series of legal and complicated issues will be debated and discussed in days to come, the Supreme Court by its February 26 order has, for now, effectively banned the textbook based on its content and perhaps the view point of its author. What remains to be seen is this: Will the Supreme Court of India seize the present opportunity to revisit its dictum in Chander Mohan Khanna?
