The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered a “blanket ban” on the Class 8 NCERT Social Science textbook which included controversial portions, with a chapter on “corruption in the judiciary”.
Apart from this, the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymala Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, also ordered immediate confiscation of the physical copies of the textbook and demanded the removal of its digital copies.
The court issues show-cause notices to the Director, National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), and Secretary, School Education Department, asking them why no criminal contempt proceedings should be initiated in the matter.
Read also | NCERT apology and confiscation of 38 books: Detailed timeline for ‘Judicial Corruption’ chapter
What the Supreme Court said during the NCERT hearing:
• “We would like to conduct a deeper investigation”: The Supreme Court requested a “deeper investigation” into the matter, while indicating the existence of a “deep-rooted conspiracy” to discredit the judiciary. “We would like to conduct a deeper investigation,” Kant said. “We need to find who is responsible and we will see who is there.” He said the inclusion of the “Corruption in the Judiciary” section was a “calculated move.”
• ‘Heads should roll’: The court said that those responsible for the incident must be held accountable. CJI Kant said it was important to know who was responsible for the deployment. “As the head of the institution, I must know who are the responsible people behind it. Heads must roll, and I will not shut down these proceedings,” the Chief Justice of India said.
• “There is no remorse, only justification.” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta tendered an apology to the court over the incident, while NCERT in an earlier statement expressed regret over the “inappropriate material”. “In the suo motu case, we initially offered an unconditional apology,” Mehta said.
However, the Supreme Court Bench stated that NCERT’s response lacked remorse. “We have seen the NCERT notice, and there is not even a simple word of apology in it. The way this director has worded this notice, there does not seem to be remorse but justification…” the bench noted.
• “They opened fire and the judiciary bleeds”: While the Solicitor General maintained that the two people who prepared the two chapters would not work with the UGC or any ministry again, the Supreme Court said this would be a “very easy” way out. “It will be very easy after that and they will walk off the pitch clean,” the substitutes said. “They opened fire. The judiciary is bleeding today,” CJI Kant said in response to the prosecutor.
• “We are not proposing to stifle legitimate criticism”: In all this, the Supreme Court has also made it clear that it is not trying to stifle any constructive criticism of the judiciary. “We hasten to add that we are not proposing automatic measures to stifle any legitimate criticism or exercise the right to judicial scrutiny. We are firmly convinced that tough rhetoric helps the vitality of the institution,” the court said.
She said that this “judicial intervention” was not to suppress criticism but rather to “support the integrity of education.” The SC said it would be “inappropriate” to expose students to a “biased narrative” at this age, when they are beginning to “navigate the nuances of public life and institutional structure”.
