TL;DR
The Supreme Court banned NCERT's new Class 8 Social Science textbook on February 26, 2026, after it included a chapter discussing corruption, case backlogs, and judge shortages in the judiciary. The Court called it a "deep-rooted conspiracy," ordered all copies seized, and issued contempt notices to NCERT's director and a senior education ministry official. The textbook was quoting publicly available data and a former Chief Justice's own remarks. The episode has sparked a nationwide debate: can India's judiciary ban criticism of itself?
What the Textbook Actually Said
The book is Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Volume II, part of NCERT's new curriculum under the National Education Policy 2020. Released on February 24, it contains Chapter 4, titled "The Role of Judiciary in Our Society," running pages 125 to 142.
Here is what the chapter covered:
- Judges are bound by a code of conduct governing their behaviour both inside and outside the courtroom.
- "People do experience corruption at various levels of the judiciary. For the poor and the disadvantaged, this can worsen the issue of access to justice."
- The judicial system faces structural challenges: corruption at different levels, a backlog of nearly 50 million cases, shortage of judges, complex procedures, and inadequate infrastructure.
- Between 2017 and 2021, over 1,600 complaints related to the judiciary were filed through the CPGRAMS portal.
- Former CJI B.R. Gavai acknowledged instances of corruption within the judiciary in July 2025, emphasising that "swift, transparent action is necessary to rebuild public trust."
The chapter also discussed judicial independence positively. It cited the Supreme Court's landmark decisions: striking down anonymous electoral bonds and removing a provision in the IT Act that allowed imprisonment for online posts. Students were asked to discuss these interventions in class. The chapter closed by stating that transparency and accountability are "essential democratic virtues."
In other words, the chapter was citing the judiciary's own former chief to make a point about reform. It wasn't a polemic. It was a textbook doing what textbooks do: presenting facts and asking students to think.
How the Ban Unfolded
The timeline compressed an extraordinary sequence of events into 48 hours.
February 24: NCERT officially released the textbook. The same day, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi flagged the chapter before the Supreme Court, calling it "scandalous." Chief Justice Surya Kant acknowledged he had received "numerous calls and messages" from high court judges who were "perturbed."
February 25: NCERT halted distribution and issued an apology, calling the content an "error of judgement" that had "inadvertently crept" into the chapter. The body pulled the textbook from circulation and recalled unsold copies to its warehouse.
February 26: A three-judge bench led by CJI Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, took suo motu cognizance of the matter. The Court imposed a "complete blanket ban" on the textbook, ordered seizure of all physical and digital copies within two weeks, and issued show-cause notices under the Contempt of Courts Act to NCERT Director Dinesh Prashad Saklani and the Secretary of the Department of School Education.
Of 2.25 lakh copies printed, only 38 had been sold before the recall. The remaining 2,24,962 copies sit in NCERT's inventory.
What the Court Said
CJI Surya Kant used unusually strong language.
"They have fired the gunshot. The judiciary is bleeding today," he remarked. He called it "a deep-rooted, well-planned, and orchestrated conspiracy" and added: "I will not allow anyone on the earth to taint the integrity and defame the entire institution."
"This is a well-orchestrated and planned move. I would like to have a deeper probe. As the head of the judiciary, it is my duty to find out who is responsible. If there are more than one, heads must roll. Accountability must be there. I am not going to close this proceeding till I am satisfied," the CJI stated.
The bench rejected NCERT's apology and said it would examine whether the "public regret" was genuine or an attempt to "wriggle out of criminal liability." It held that the publication could amount to criminal contempt of court if proven to be deliberate.
In an important caveat, the bench also stated: "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."
How exactly that squares with banning a textbook that quoted publicly available data and a former CJI's own words is the question the country is now wrestling with.
The Government Falls in Line
The Centre moved swiftly to align with the Court.
Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan confirmed the withdrawal and announced a formal inquiry. "The moment it came to our notice, directions were issued to withdraw the book and stop its distribution. We have the utmost respect for the judiciary," he said.
PM Modi reportedly raised concerns at a Cabinet meeting, questioning "the appropriateness of exposing Class 8 children to discussions on judicial corruption" and directing that accountability be fixed.
The Solicitor General informed the Court that the chapter had been withdrawn, and that officials who defended the chapter "would not be associated with NCERT or any ministry in the future."
NCERT is now investigating its own officials to identify who approved the text. The textbook was drafted by an expert panel that included a lawyer, but no separate legal review of the judiciary chapter was conducted before publication.
Criticism: Who Objects to the Ban, and Why
The reaction has not been unanimous support for the Court.
On selective targeting: Kapil Sibal, who initially flagged the chapter, pointed out that the textbook discussed corruption only in the judiciary while ignoring graft in the political class and bureaucracy. His concern was selectivity, not the discussion itself. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay echoed this, saying discussions on corruption "should be broader and not limited to the judiciary alone."
On academic freedom: Education activist Dr. Ravi Kapoor called it censorship: "The Court's intervention sets a terrifying precedent, suggesting that any material perceived as critical can be banned. This stifles academic freedom and prevents students from developing critical thinking skills."
On political hypocrisy: Congress MP Jairam Ramesh backed the Court's outrage but also called the decade of NCERT textbook rewrites "shameful," attributing them to RSS influence. Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge said the Court was right but should also address "misinformation in textbooks, mythology being passed off as history, and the decline of scientific temperament."
On constitutional conflict: Legal scholars have pointed to the tension between Article 19(1)(a), which protects free speech, and the broad scope of "scandalising the court" under India's Contempt of Courts Act. Many democracies, including the UK, have abolished the offence of scandalising the court entirely. When the judiciary is both the subject of criticism and the body deciding whether that criticism is criminal, the conflict of interest is structural, not incidental.
Why This Matters Beyond the Textbook
India's judiciary has 53 million pending cases. A 2025 speech by a former Chief Justice acknowledged corruption within the system. The CPGRAMS data on complaints is government data. None of this is opinion. It is on the public record.
The question this episode raises is not whether the textbook could have been written better, or whether 13-year-olds are the right audience for a discussion about judicial corruption. Those are legitimate pedagogical debates that involve curriculum experts, not contempt proceedings.
The real question is sharper: can a democratic institution ban a textbook that discusses its shortcomings, using the coercive power of contempt, while simultaneously claiming it welcomes "rigorous discourse"?
India teaches its children about the executive's failures, the legislature's gridlock, and the media's biases. Social science textbooks routinely discuss political corruption, caste discrimination, and police brutality. If the judiciary is the one institution that cannot be discussed critically in a classroom, that tells us something about the limits of India's democratic conversation, not the quality of its judges.
This is not the first time NCERT textbooks have triggered political storms. From allegations of left-leaning bias to accusations of historical revisionism, India's national curriculum has always been a political battleground. But this is the first time the Supreme Court has banned a textbook for discussing one of its own acknowledged problems.
The next hearing is scheduled for March 11. Whatever the Court decides, the Streisand effect has already kicked in. The chapter that 38 students might have read has now been downloaded, screenshotted, and debated by millions.
Sources
- LiveLaw: Supreme Court Bans NCERT Textbook
- The Wire: SC Bans NCERT Book, Issues Notice
- Outlook India: SC Bans Book With Chapter On Corruption In Judiciary
- The Tribune: SC Bans NCERT Book, Orders Seizure
- The Week: Classroom vs Courtroom
- The Week: They Fired the Gunshot, 10 Points
- Bar and Bench: Suo Motu Case Live Updates
- Republic World: PM Modi Voices Concern
- ANI: Education Minister on NCERT Row
- India TV: PM Modi Wants Accountability Fixed
- The News Mill: NCERT Investigates Officials
- Republic World: Textbook Drafted by Expert Panel
- ANI: BJP Backs Probe, Congress Calls Rewrite Shameful
