The Supreme Court on Friday withdrew adverse remarks made earlier against three academics linked to an NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook controversy and modified its March 11 order that had directed
governments and institutions to disassociate from them.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant accepted the explanation of academics Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar that they had no intention to portray the judiciary negatively and that the textbook was prepared through a collective process.
The court said the Centre, states, Union Territories and institutions were free to take an independent decision regarding the three experts without being influenced by the earlier order.
“We deem it appropriate to modify paragraph 8 of our March 11, 2026 order and recall the direction to Union, states, UTs or other universities/institutions to disassociate the three applicants from academic activities. In this regard, we leave it to the Union, states and UTs or other authorities to take an independent decision without being influenced by paragraph 8 of our order,” the order by the bench said.
The controversy relates to an NCERT Class 8 chapter titled “The role of the judiciary in our society”, which included references to corruption in the judiciary. The Centre had later withdrawn the textbook and formed a committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra to revise the content.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, deleted observations made in March that accused the experts of “deliberately” and “knowingly” misrepresenting facts about the judiciary. The court clarified on Friday that the textbook content was the result of a collective decision.
“Similarly, the remarks that the three applicants acted deliberately and knowingly and misrepresented the facts is recalled in view of their explanation. Consequently, it is clarified that it was a collective decision,” the order passed on Friday said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, informed the court that the government had already decided to disassociate the three experts. He also disputed the claim that the textbook drafting process was entirely collective.
Senior advocates Shyam Divan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and J Sai Deepak, appearing for the three academics, argued that the court’s earlier remarks had severely damaged their professional reputation and academic work.
The Supreme Court, however, maintained that its concerns were about the content of the textbook and said a balanced view on the role of the judiciary was missing in the chapter.
