Judgment Intelligence
Other
In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade-8 (Part-2) Published by NCERT and Ancillary Issues
Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1/2026 (with I.A. No. 261029/2026)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 1 September 2026
- Bench
- Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India (inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court)
Final Outcome
Suo motu writ petition disposed of and closed; I.A. No. 261029/2026 disposed of with the clarification; show-cause notices discharged; pending applications disposed of (paras 3, 16, 19).
Source Supreme Court of India (sci.gov.in), decided 01.09.2026
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The proceedings began after a newspaper report of 24.02.2026 on NCERT's Grade 8 textbook Exploring Society: India and Beyond, whose Chapter 4 on the judiciary had a sub-topic on corruption in the judiciary (para 4). On 26.02.2026 the Court took suo motu cognizance, finding a prima facie attempt to undermine the judiciary, ordered the book withdrawn, banned its further publication and issued notices to the NCERT Director and the Education Secretary (paras 5-6). Both apologised unconditionally, 82,440 copies were recalled, and the Centre set up a committee of Justice Indu Malhotra, K.K. Venugopal and Professor Prakash Singh (paras 8, 10).
Court's Findings
The Bench first clarified, on an application, that para 5 of its order of 22.05.2026 merely recorded the Solicitor General's statement that the curriculum had not gone before the committee at all levels, and was not an observation or order of the Court (paras 1-3). On the main matter, it noted that the expert committee, working with the National Judicial Academy and the reconstituted twenty-member NSTC, had reviewed Chapter 4 and other material, and that the revised chapter was in classroom use (paras 11-14). Having read the report and the revised text, it found the text objective, factually accurate and balanced, neither glorifying nor unfairly disparaging the judiciary (para 14). Given the apologies, the recall, the reconstitution of the NSTC and the completed review, the object of the proceedings stood substantially achieved (para 15). The Court reiterated that the judiciary is not averse to fair, informed criticism, which belongs in the appropriate forum and not, unverified, in a school curriculum: "The distinction lies not between criticism and silence, but between responsible discourse and uninformed assertion" (para 18).
Legal Principle
Fair and informed criticism of the judiciary is legitimate, but unverified assertions about it should not enter school curricula meant for impressionable minds. Once offending material is withdrawn, revised by experts and apologised for, suo motu proceedings may be closed while holding the authorities to their assurances (paras 15-16, 18).