Judicial Openness vs. Unverified Classroom Material
The Supreme Court has said that fair and informed criticism of the judiciary strengthens constitutional democracy. However, the Court stressed that such criticism must follow responsible and legitimate channels. The NCERT Judiciary Textbook case also raised concerns about exposing school students to allegations that authorities had not properly verified.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana considered the issue. The bench said constructive criticism promotes institutional accountability and encourages self-correction.
At the same time, the Court stressed the need to protect impressionable students from unverified claims. It drew a clear distinction between responsible public discourse and unsupported assertions.
The bench stated:
“The Judiciary, as an institution, is not, and cannot be, averse to criticism. Fair, informed and constructive critique of judicial functioning is a legitimate and necessary feature of a vibrant constitutional democracy, contributing to institutional accountability and self-correction. What is required, however, is that such criticism be voiced through the appropriate forum and in a fair, rational mechanism, and not find its way, without verification, into a school curriculum meant for impressionable minds. The distinction lies not between criticism and silence, but between responsible discourse and uninformed assertion.”
Supreme Court Reviews Corrective Measures
The Court made these observations while closing the suo motu proceedings titled In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade–8 (Part-2) Published by NCERT and Ancillary Issues.
The matter carried Case No. SMW (C) No. 1/2026 and Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 920.
The Supreme Court had initiated the proceedings over a controversial chapter titled “Corruption in the Judiciary.” The chapter appeared in a Class 8 Social Science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).
During the hearings, the Court examined several corrective measures taken by the government and educational authorities.
The Director of NCERT and the Secretary of the Department of School Education and Literacy tendered unconditional apologies. Authorities also recalled the disputed textbook from circulation.
They further reconstituted the National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC). The move aimed to strengthen the review process for educational content.
Expert Committee Reviews Revised Text
Authorities also constituted an Expert Committee to address concerns over the curriculum. The committee included former Supreme Court Judge Justice Indu Malhotra, former Attorney General for India K.K. Venugopal, and Professor Prakash Singh.
The committee worked with the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal and the reconstituted NSTC. Together, they reviewed the disputed material and prepared a fresh chapter.
The new text explains the constitutional role and functioning of India’s judicial system. It also discusses judicial independence and accountability mechanisms.
After examining the revised NCERT Judiciary Textbook material, the Supreme Court expressed satisfaction with its content and approach. The Court found that the revised chapter presented an objective and balanced account of the judiciary.
The bench noted that the chapter explains constitutional safeguards and judicial independence in a fact-based manner. It also addresses accountability without unnecessarily glorifying or disparaging the institution.
Court Clarifies Remarks About Academic Contributors
The bench also addressed an application concerning its earlier order dated May 22, 2026.
That order recorded a submission from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. He had stated that materials prepared by three academic applicants had not completed every stage of administrative committee review.
According to the submission, the material therefore lacked collective approval.
The Supreme Court clarified that it had merely recorded the Solicitor General’s submission. The statement did not amount to a judicial finding against the academics.
The Court also made clear that it had not passed any adverse observation against the academic contributors.
Supreme Court Closes Suo Motu Proceedings
The Supreme Court concluded that the authorities had achieved the principal objectives of the suo motu proceedings.
It therefore discharged the show-cause notices against the Director of NCERT and the Secretary of School Education.
The bench directed the Union of India, NCERT, and other authorities to follow their undertakings. It asked them to ensure rigorous scrutiny of future educational materials concerning public institutions.
The Court also appreciated the contributions of the Expert Committee and the reconstituted NSTC.
Finding that no further intervention was necessary, the Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition and closed the proceedings.
