NEW DELHI: Professor Michelle Danino, teacher Subarna Diwakar, and legal scholar Alok Prasanna Kumar have defended their roles in a now-withdrawn eighth-grade social science class on the judiciary.
In an affidavit to the Supreme Court, Danino said the dismissal was the result of a “collective and collaborative” process with no individual authorship, and that there was no intention to harm the institution, disputed allegations made by NCERT director Dinesh Prasad Saklani.
The three filed separate affidavits on Saturday before Monday’s hearing and said the dismissal was the result of an exercise by the 51-member Textbook Development Team (TDT), with 15 active contributors, rather than the work of three individuals as suggested in Scalani’s March 11 filing.
Danino also disputed the claim that the drafts were shared “only digitally among a few members,” noting that they were distributed through a Google group with more than 40 members. He described it as “factually incorrect” to name Diwakar as editor, with her affidavit stating that her role as principal advisor in the Program Office of the National Curriculum and Teaching Materials Committee (NSTC) was limited to coordination and facilitation, with no authorial or evaluative responsibility.
In its March 11 order, the Supreme Court ordered the Centre, states and publicly funded institutions to separate the three from curriculum development and preparation of textbooks, observing that the three either had “no reasonable knowledge of Indian judiciary” or had “deliberately and willfully misrepresented the facts”. However, they were allowed to request an amendment, after which they went to court.
Defending the chapter, Danino said that there was “absolutely no intention to offend the judiciary” and that the content was in line with the National Education Policy 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023, both of which aim to promote critical thinking among students. He said that the textbook follows a unified educational approach across the executive, legislative and judicial authorities, and discusses their roles and the challenges they face.
“This was also in line with several global research recommending that students from the age of 11 should be progressively involved in discussing such real-life issues and challenges, rather than having such situations withheld from them,” the affidavit said.
Kumar said he was “surprised” that the three were “unjustifiably targeted”, stressing that NCERT policy does not recognize individual authorship. He had earlier said he was the only legal expert among 15 contributors to the 51-member team.
Detailing the process, Danino said drafts of the chapter were shared repeatedly between September and December 2025 through a Google group with more than 40 members.
“This group was used to share successive versions of the chapter on the judiciary on September 1, October 23, November 4 and December 3, 2025,” his affidavit said, adding that these communications were copied by Al-Saklani, in his capacity as director of NCERT and a member of the National Oversight Committee (NOC).
He said that eight members of the National Curriculum and Teaching Materials Committee (NSTC), including its chairman Professor MC Pant and co-chairman Manjul Bhargava, and five members of the NOC, including its chairman Professor Jagbir Singh, have also been informed and invited to comment. He added that the final content of the chapter was discussed with Bhargava, who expressed his satisfaction with it in late November 2025.
HT reached out to Bhargava and Saklani for comment, but they did not respond. Senior lawyers Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Aravind Datar and G Sai Deepak, representing the three, appeared before the bench on Monday, led by CJI Surya Kant and requested a hearing after two weeks.
