WHEN THE SUPREME COURT assembled on Wednesday to take up the suo motu matter concerning the NCERT's Class 8 Social Science textbook, the hearing entailed three distinct developments. First, a set of concrete, consequential directions against the individuals who prepared the offending chapter; second, an order that the rewritten chapter must be vetted by an expert committee before it sees the inside of any classroom; and third, a series of remarks from the bench about social media critics that are likely to generate debate of their own.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi, and Vipul M. Pancholi was examining the compliance affidavit filed by NCERT Director Professor Dinesh Prasad Saklani, who had earlier received a show-cause notice for potential criminal contempt. The affidavit, rather than settling the Court's concerns, appears to have deepened them.
Three authors barred from all public-funded projects
The most significant direction of the day concerned three individuals who were identified as having been involved in preparing the chapter in question: visiting professor Michel Danino, educator Suparna Diwakar and legal researcher Alok Prasanna Kumar. The Court directed the Union government, all state governments, Union Territories, universities and every institution receiving public funds to disassociate all three forthwith from any assignment involving public money.
The Court's stated reasoning was that the three either “lacked reasonable knowledge about the Indian judiciary or had deliberately misrepresented facts to project a negative image” of it before students at an impressionable age. “There is no reason why such persons be associated in any manner with the preparation of curriculum or finalisation of textbooks for the next generation,” the order stated.
The direction is sweeping in its scope, extending beyond NCERT to the entire ecosystem of publicly funded institutions, and was issued without a prior hearing of the individuals concerned. The Court did preserve a narrow avenue of recourse, clarifying that the bar would be subject to the three approaching the Court for modification along with an explanation.
Committee of domain experts to approve ‘rewritten chapter’
The Court had visible displeasure at the disclosure buried in the NCERT Director's affidavit wherein he noted that Chapter IV of the book had already been “duly rewritten” and would be incorporated into the 2026-27 curriculum. The affidavit offered no details of who had authored the revision, what it contained, or who had approved it.
“You say it has been re-written. Who has re-written? Where is it? This is the manner in which the deponent says a laconic statement,” Justice Bagchi observed. The Chief Justice added that the affidavit was “eye-opening”, remarking that the curriculum appeared to be “issued without approval at any level.”
The Court directed that the rewritten chapter shall not be published unless cleared by a committee of domain experts to be constituted by the Union government, preferably including a former senior judge, an eminent academician and a renowned legal practitioner. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing through video conference, gave an unequivocal assurance to that effect.
Remarks on social media critics
The hearing also produced a set of remarks directed at persons who had commented on social media following the Court's February 26 order. The Chief Justice described them as “anti-social elements” who had “acted and reacted, irresponsibly,” and directed the government to identify the websites involved, trace those operating them, and furnish their full details for “suitable action.” The Chief Justice indicated that those responsible would not be spared even if they were abroad.
The Court simultaneously reiterated that its orders were not intended to prevent legitimate criticism of the judiciary, and that an expert committee identifying genuine institutional deficiencies would be “a welcome step”.
The coexistence of these two positions with a broad direction to identify and act against social media commentators, alongside an assurance of space for legitimate criticism leaves open the question of where, and by whom, that line is to be drawn.
The matter continues before the bench. As of the moment of this publication, the Court’s order has not yet been released, the Court’s official website noting that the matter may be next listed on April 6, 2026.
This piece will be updated as the order is released.
