Coming down heavily on the NCERT’s publication of a Class 8 Social Science textbook chapter referring to “corruption in judiciary,” the Supreme Court on Thursday, 26 February 2026, issued show-cause notices to the Secretary of School Education in the Ministry of Education and the NCERT Director, asking why action under the Contempt of Courts Act or any other law should not be initiated against them.
The Court prima facie observed that the publication of the book amounted to serious misconduct and could fall within the ambit of criminal contempt if found to be a deliberate attempt to scandalise the judiciary.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi passed the order in suo motu proceedings taken over the textbook controversy.
Blanket ban and seizure ordered
The Court imposed a complete ban on the publication, reprinting and digital dissemination of the book containing the disputed content. It warned that any sharing of the material in any form would be viewed seriously.
The physical copies of the books were ordered to be seized.
“The NCERT in coordination with the Union and State Education Depts is directed to ensure that all copies of the book (hard or soft) currently in circulation, whether held in storage, retail outlets, or educational institutions, are seized and removed from public access. Compliance be filed.”
The Court further directed that no instruction should be imparted to students based on the book.
“It shall be personal responsibility of NCERT Director and the principal of every school where the book has reached to effectuate immediate seizure and sealing of all copies of the book in their premises and submit a compliance report. Ensure that no instruction is imparted based on the subject book. Principal Secretaries of all states are to comply. Compliance to be sent within 2 weeks.”
The Bench added: “As an abundant precaution, a complete blanket ban is hereby imposed on any further publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of the book. Any attempt to circumvent this order through electronic means or altered titles shall be seen as direct interference, willful breach and defiance of directions.”
Names of authors sought
The Court directed the NCERT Director to furnish the names and credentials of all persons involved in preparing the offending chapter. It also ordered production of the original minutes of meetings where the chapter was deliberated and finalised.
Court flags “contemptuous” reply
The Bench noted that the chapter referred to the number of complaints received against judges in a manner that created the impression that no action was taken. It also observed that comments made by former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai were taken out of context to suggest that the CJI himself had acknowledged corruption.
The Court expressed unhappiness with the NCERT Director for writing to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court defending the chapter.
The Bench observed that the Director’s reply was “contemptuous and reckless.”
It further remarked that there appeared to be a “calculated move to undermine the institutional authority and demean dignity of the institution,” warning that if left unchecked the publication could erode the judiciary’s stature, particularly among impressionable young minds.
At the same time, the Court clarified: “We may however hasten to add that we do not propose to initiate the suo motu proceedings to stifle any legitimate criticism or to stop any individual from exercising the right to scrutinise public institutions, including the judiciary.”
Courtroom exchanges
At the outset of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that NCERT had withdrawn the Class 8 Social Science chapter and apologised for the error.
However, CJI Surya Kant remarked that the NCERT press release did not contain a “single word of apology.” He also noted that when the Supreme Court registry earlier sought clarification, NCERT had defended the chapter.
The Solicitor General assured the Bench that the individuals who defended the chapter would not be associated with NCERT or any ministry in future.
“That’s very little consequence. They fired gunshot, judiciary is bleeding today,” the CJI said.
The Solicitor General further assured the Court that the chapter would be republished after scrutiny. “I will vet it,” he said.
He also informed the Court that only 32 copies of the book had reached the market and steps were being taken to retrieve them. He added that another chapter titled “justice delayed is justice denied” contained inaccurate backlog figures.
“We cannot teach our children that justice is denied in the country,” the Solicitor General said.
The CJI described the episode as a “deep-rooted, well-orchestrated conspiracy” to malign the judiciary.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that soft copies of the chapter were being widely circulated on social media. Justice Bagchi observed that the Centre should issue directions to take down the material online.
CJI Surya Kant stressed the need to fix accountability.
“As the head of the institution, I must find out who the persons who are responsible behind it. Heads must roll, I am not going to close these proceedings,” he said.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairperson of the Bar Council of India, also appeared supporting judicial intervention.
Background
The controversy began on 24 February 2026 after media reports highlighted that the new NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook listed “corruption in judiciary” and case backlog as major challenges.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr A.M. Singhvi mentioned the issue before the CJI-led Bench, arguing that the content scandalised the judiciary.
The CJI had then observed that many judges were perturbed and stated: “I will not allow anyone on the earth to taint the integrity and defame the entire institution.”
Following the Court’s initial remarks, NCERT withdrew the book and issued a statement saying: “As part of its continuous review process, NCERT remains open to constructive feedback. And hence, the same shall be rewritten, with consultation of the appropriate authority, as necessary, and would be available to students of class 8 accordingly on the commencement of the academic session 2026-27.”
The statement acknowledged that the chapter contained “inappropriate” material and described the lapse as an “error of judgment” that was unintentional.
The matter remains under further consideration by the Supreme Court.
Source: LiveLaw
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
