Supreme Court Orders Removal of 3 NCERT Members Over Controversial Judiciary Chapter

New Delhi, March 11: The Supreme Court on Wednesday instructed all central and state government institutions funded by public money to remove the chairperson of NCERT’s social science curriculum, Professor Michel Danino, and two associates from any involvement in preparing or finalising textbooks for future academic years.

The move follows a public outcry over a Class 8 NCERT chapter on “Corruption in the Judiciary”, which raised concerns over misrepresentation of facts and the portrayal of judges. The physical and digital copies of the textbook were withdrawn, and NCERT issued an apology for the content.

A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant emphasized that the three members should have no financial or administrative role in any textbook-related activities until further notice. “There is no reason as to why such persons should be associated in any manner with the preparation of the curriculum or finalisation of textbooks for the next generation,” the court remarked.

The Court also rejected NCERT’s claim that the chapter had been rewritten, stating that any revised material must first be approved by a newly constituted expert committee, comprising a former senior judge, an eminent academic, and a respected practitioner. The Centre has been directed to form this panel within one week.

While accepting an unconditional apology submitted by NCERT, the Court expressed concerns about the current approval process, noting the absence of eminent jurists in the approval committee and stressing that the government should oversee curriculum approvals rather than leaving it entirely to NCERT.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Bench that the NCERT Director had tendered the apology and that the government had asked NCERT to review textbooks across all standards to prevent future controversies.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had issued show-cause notices to the NCERT Director and the Secretary of the School Education Department for potentially initiating contempt proceedings over the chapter, which the Bench said did not adequately represent the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional morality.