Supreme Court of India has delivered a sharp rebuke to the National Council of Educational Research and Training over a Class 8 social science textbook that carried a chapter alleging corruption within the higher judiciary, signalling that a simple apology and withdrawal may not settle concerns about accountability and institutional safeguards.Hearing petitions challenging the inclusion of the chapter, the bench led by the Chief Justice of India observed that imputations of judicial corruption in a school textbook required the highest degree of scrutiny, particularly when aimed at constitutional courts. The court said that while academic debate and critical thinking must be encouraged, assertions presented to impressionable students must rest on verifiable facts and a balanced exposition of institutional mechanisms.
NCERT, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education responsible for developing national curricula and textbooks, has issued an unconditional apology to the court. It has withdrawn the chapter from circulation and suspended further distribution of the book pending review. Counsel appearing for NCERT informed the bench that an internal committee had been set up to examine how the chapter was approved and to recommend corrective measures.
Despite these steps, the court indicated that the matter could not be treated as closed. The Chief Justice underlined that removal alone does not address the larger issue of due process in textbook preparation. Observations from the bench suggested that the court may seek a detailed affidavit on the vetting process, including the role of subject experts, review panels and editorial oversight.
The controversy centres on a chapter that reportedly discussed allegations of judicial corruption in broad terms, without naming specific cases or providing context about how the judiciary addresses misconduct. Petitioners argued that the language used created a sweeping impression that corruption was endemic to the judicial system, potentially eroding public confidence. They contended that while the judiciary, like any institution, is open to criticism, educational material must reflect constitutional principles and established safeguards such as in-house procedures and impeachment provisions.
Legal scholars note that the Supreme Court has historically balanced freedom of expression with institutional integrity. In past rulings, it has upheld the importance of academic freedom, yet drawn a line where statements are found to be defamatory or lacking factual foundation. The present proceedings appear to test that boundary in the context of school education rather than scholarly discourse.
Education policy experts say textbook development involves multiple layers of consultation, including external academics and state-level feedback. However, the scale of the national curriculum means that lapses can have far-reaching impact. NCERT textbooks are widely used not only in central schools but also adopted or adapted by several state boards. Any perceived inaccuracy therefore travels quickly across classrooms.
The Ministry of Education has not publicly commented in detail, but officials familiar with the process indicate that textbook revisions are periodically undertaken to align with curricular changes. They also point out that NCERT operates with academic autonomy, though it remains accountable to statutory and constitutional norms.
Civil society reactions have been mixed. Some educationists have expressed concern that judicial intervention in textbook content could chill critical engagement with institutions. Others argue that the issue is not about criticism per se, but about ensuring that allegations are contextualised and supported by credible sources. Former judges have emphasised that mechanisms exist to address corruption, including internal inquiries and parliamentary impeachment, and that students should be taught about these checks rather than broad allegations.
Data from parliamentary records show that impeachment proceedings against judges have been initiated sparingly, and no Supreme Court judge has been successfully impeached. The judiciary has also evolved internal procedures for examining complaints, though details of such inquiries are not always made public. The opacity of these processes has long been a subject of debate among legal reform advocates.