The Supreme Court of India took extraordinary suo motu cognisance on February 26, 2026, of a section in a Class 8 Social Science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training that referenced “corruption” in the judiciary as a challenge facing the judicial system. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, visibly agitated in open court, characterised the textual reference as “a tentatively calculated, deep-rooted attempt” to denigrate the judicial institution, while senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi highlighted that the selective mention of the judiciary, without equivalent reference to corruption in the executive or legislative branches, appeared deliberate.
The NCERT subsequently issued an apology acknowledging an “error in judgement” and stated that distribution of the textbook had been placed on hold. However, the Supreme Court proceeded to register the suo motu case under the title “In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade-8 (Part 2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues”, scheduling a hearing the following morning before a three-judge bench.
💡 Get AI-powered exam prep on your phone!
This episode raises questions that go to the very heart of constitutional governance in India: What are the appropriate limits of academic freedom in school curriculum? Can a textbook’s factual acknowledgment of institutional challenges — including those within the judiciary — constitute contempt or defamation of the institution? And does the judiciary’s intervention in curriculum content raise concerns about the separation of powers and the chilling of legitimate academic and pedagogical discourse?
Table of Contents
Background and Institutional Context
Five Important Key Points
- The NCERT is a statutory body established under the Societies Registration Act, mandated to develop curriculum frameworks, publish textbooks, and conduct educational research to improve school education quality across India.
- The disputed section in the Class 8 Social Science textbook mentioned corruption, a massive backlog of cases, and a lack of adequate judges as challenges facing the judicial system — a characterisation consistent with findings of multiple parliamentary committees, Law Commission reports, and the Supreme Court itself in various judicial administration cases.
- The Supreme Court registered the suo motu case even after NCERT had already announced withdrawal of the disputed section, indicating that the court considered the institutional issue to transcend the immediate textbook controversy.
- Justice Bagchi of the Supreme Court bench indicated that the mention affected constitutional integrity and impacted the principle of separation of powers, a component of the Basic Structure Doctrine as established in the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973.
- NCERT’s statement expressed that the council “holds the judiciary in highest esteem” and characterised the error as “purely unintentional”, while committing to rewrite the section in consultation with appropriate authorities.
Historical Background of Judicial Primacy in Constitutional Discourse
India’s constitutional architecture places the judiciary at the apex of the rights-protection framework. The doctrine of judicial independence, while not explicitly enumerated as a fundamental right, has been treated by the Supreme Court as a fundamental feature of the Constitution under the Basic Structure Doctrine since Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973). The independence of the judiciary has been further elaborated in the Second Judges Case (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association vs Union of India, 1993), where a nine-judge bench held that judicial independence is the most important pillar of constitutional governance.
Simultaneously, however, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which encompasses academic freedom and the freedom of educators and curriculum designers to critically examine public institutions. The tension between protecting judicial dignity and preserving the space for legitimate institutional critique is not new — it has played out in contempt proceedings, restrictions on press reporting, and now, in school curriculum design.
Constitutional Provisions and Legal Framework
Several constitutional provisions and legal instruments are directly relevant to this controversy. Article 129 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt of itself, while Article 215 confers the same power on High Courts. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, distinguishes between civil contempt (wilful disobedience of court orders) and criminal contempt (publication of material that scandalises or tends to scandalise the authority of the court).
The critical question is whether a school textbook’s factual description of institutional challenges — framed within a civic education context — can constitute criminal contempt. The Supreme Court in Brahma Prakash Sharma vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1953) held that for material to constitute contempt, it must be calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or create an apprehension in the minds of people regarding the court’s ability to act impartially. A pedagogical description of systemic challenges, backed by documented evidence, arguably does not meet this threshold.
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the National Education Policy 2020 both emphasise critical thinking, constitutional literacy, and institutional awareness as core pedagogical goals. There is a tension between these mandates and the apparent requirement that textbooks maintain unconditional reverence for state institutions.
The Separation of Powers Dimension
Justice Bagchi’s observation that the textbook content affected the principle of separation of powers deserves careful examination. The separation of powers doctrine, as part of the Basic Structure, protects each branch of government from encroachment by the others. If the legislature were to pass a law removing the judiciary’s power of judicial review, that would violate separation of powers. However, whether a curriculum text’s discussion of judicial challenges similarly violates this principle is a far more complex argument.
If the court’s position is that no educational material may describe institutional weaknesses of the judiciary without judicial approval, this creates a scenario where one branch of government — the judiciary — effectively controls the curriculum narrative about itself, which paradoxically might itself constitute an encroachment on the executive’s domain over educational policy. This is the kind of structural irony that the UPSC examiner will appreciate a candidate engaging with analytically.
Governance Concerns: NCERT Autonomy and Curriculum Design
NCERT, as an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education, is expected to develop curriculum content based on pedagogical research, expert committee deliberations, and National Curriculum Framework guidelines. The politicisation of NCERT content has been a recurring concern — various state governments and political parties have, over decades, sought to influence what is taught in schools.
The Yashpal Committee and the National Curriculum Framework of 2005 had explicitly cautioned against making school education an exercise in uncritical acceptance of established authority, advocating instead for a curriculum that develops democratic temperament and critical citizenship. The current controversy suggests that these pedagogical values remain contested in practice.
Comparative Analysis: Judicial Dignity vs. Academic Freedom
Democracies worldwide grapple with this balance. In the United Kingdom, academic textbooks regularly describe institutional failures, including those of courts and the legal system, as part of civic education. In the United States, the First Amendment jurisprudence broadly protects academic freedom, including the right to critically examine government institutions in educational settings. India’s contempt jurisprudence has historically been more restrictive, though the Supreme Court itself, in Indirect Tax Practitioners’ Association vs R.K. Jain (2010), cautioned that contempt powers should not be used to shield courts from fair and legitimate criticism.
Way Forward
The Supreme Court should use this case as an opportunity to articulate a clear and calibrated standard distinguishing legitimate institutional critique from material that genuinely scandalises the judiciary. The court may also consider directing the establishment of an independent curriculum review committee, comprising educationists, constitutional scholars, and civil society representatives, to periodically review educational content on public institutions for accuracy and pedagogical soundness — without subjecting that content to institutional veto power. NCERT should develop transparent, publicly accessible protocols for curriculum review and revision, ensuring that changes to textbook content are driven by pedagogical evidence rather than institutional pressure.
Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations
This topic is relevant for UPSC GS-II under Polity and Governance, specifically the functioning of the judiciary, constitutional bodies, separation of powers, and fundamental rights. It is relevant for the Essay paper under themes of institutional integrity, academic freedom, and democracy. For SSC examinations, it covers constitutional provisions, important Supreme Court cases, and functioning of the NCERT.
Key terms: Suo motu cognisance, Basic Structure Doctrine, Article 129, Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Kesavananda Bharati case, National Curriculum Framework, Right to Education Act 2009, separation of powers, NCERT autonomy.