The Supreme Court on Friday modified its March 11 order directing the Centre, states, union territories, universities and other institutions to disengage from three academicians, in connection with a row over a chapter of the NCERT Class 8 book containing “offensive” remarks about corruption in the judiciary, and struck down all negative remarks against them.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant accepted the explanation of the three experts – Michel Danino, Subarna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar – that they had no intention of showing the judiciary in a bad light and that preparing the textbook was a team effort.
The court left the matter to the states and the Center to take an independent decision without being influenced by the court’s previous directions.
“We deem it appropriate to amend Paragraph 8 of our order dated March 11, 2026 and state direction to the Union, States, UTs or universities/other institutions to disengage the three applicants from academic activities. In this regard, we leave it to the Union, States, UTs or other authorities to take an independent decision without being affected by Paragraph 8 of our order,” the order passed by the bench said.
The controversy centers around the NCERT class 8 social science textbook, which included a section on “Corruption in the Judiciary” as part of a chapter titled “Role of the Judiciary in Our Society”.
The order issued on March 11 included statements condemning the three experts who participated in preparing the content of the textbook, which the center later withdrew. The government then constituted a committee of experts headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice (retd) Indu Malhotra, to review the textbook and recommend appropriate changes.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalia Bagchi and Vipul M., also deleted the statement. Pancholi, other negative observations in the March 11 order alleged that the experts acted “willfully” and “knowingly” and misrepresented facts relating to the judiciary.
“Similarly, the statements that the three applicants acted intentionally and knowingly and misrepresented the facts are called out in the light of their interpretation. Hence, it is made clear that it was a collective decision,” the order issued on Friday said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, stated that the Center had taken a decision to dismiss the three members. He even disputed the statement that the textbook was prepared as a “group effort,” pointing out that the draft curriculum for the textbook had not been shared with all members of the National Curriculum and Teaching Materials Committee (NSTC).
Senior lawyers Shyam Divan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and J Sai Deepak appeared for Danino, Kumar and Deokar respectively, and said the court’s comments had “severe” consequences on the reputation, career and future activities of the three people.
Devan said Danino is a renowned academic and explained how different people were involved in every step of the textbook preparation process. But the order that was issued without hearing him seriously harmed his right to work, as the order directs institutions and governments to distance himself from him.
Sankaranarayanan noted that the court held in its order that the experts did not have “knowledge” of the Indian judiciary. He said that in the academic field, there are issues that need to be discussed, and the chapter in question contains positive elements about the judiciary as well.
The authority said: “We feel that a balanced view of the role of the judiciary was not presented. While certain aspects were highlighted, the role of the judiciary in maintaining constitutional sovereignty was completely overlooked. Instead, the focus was on highlighting corruption in the judiciary.” She further stated that aspects related to access to legal services and the role played by the judiciary in enhancing legal assistance to the poor and marginalized have been ignored in textbook curricula.
“We have no reason to suspect that Professor Michel Danino and his assistants, Ms. Subarna Diwakar and Mr. Alok Prasanna Kumar, do not have reasonably informed knowledge about the Indian judiciary and/or that they willfully and willfully misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian judiciary to the students of Class VIII, who are of an impressionable age,” the March 11 order said.
Even before that, on February 26, the court said: “On prima facie examination of the contents of the book… it reveals a clear underlying agenda to subvert institutional authority and denigrate the dignity of the judiciary. This would, if allowed, go unchecked and would erode the sanctity of the judicial office in the estimation of the public at large and, more importantly, in the impressionable minds of the youth.”
Lawyers urged the court to consider striking parts of the February order as well. “The categorical opinion we had given has been deleted. This takes into account the fact that our conclusion is no longer part of the final order,” the bench said.
Deepak said that despite the court’s clarifications, reports in the media were very damning against the experts. He stated that the Karnataka government had issued an order dismissing the applicant from 31 institutions.
“Our observations will be in the context of the content and not the individual. Let sensationalism be part of the reports, but let the dialogue between senior lawyers and the court not be based on such reports,” the court said.
On March 16, the education ministry constituted an oversight committee headed by Justice Malhotra, and including two other members – former Attorney General KK Venugopal and Prakash Singh, who is vice-chancellor of Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna University Garhwal in Uttarakhand. In addition, the Center has also engaged the President of the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, to review and finalize the curriculum for Class VIII and higher classes.
Even the 20-member National Security Council has been reconstituted, headed by former Vice Chancellor MC Pant and co-chaired by mathematician Manjul Bhargava, a professor at Princeton University.
