Controversy Ends as Supreme Court Closes Suo Motu Case Over NCERT Textbook Chapter on Judicial Corruption

The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed its suo motu proceedings concerning a controversial chapter titled "Corruption in Judiciary" in an NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook, after the Union Government confirmed that the offending material had been permanently withdrawn and replaced across the country.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana brought the curtain down on the legal battle after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that newly revised textbooks, drafted under the guidance of a Centre-appointed expert panel, are now in circulation.

Expert Panel Replaces Controversial Content

The top court had previously stepped in with stern measures after taking strong exception to the textbook's contents, banning the distribution of the original Grade 8 books and issuing contempt notices to senior officials within the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the Union Ministry of Education who had sanctioned the material.

During Tuesday's proceedings, Solicitor General Mehta assured the court that the government had acted swiftly to rectify the curriculum. With the revised textbooks actively distributed to schools, the bench noted that no further orders were necessary to keep the suo motu case alive.

Supreme Court Clears the Air for Academics

The hearing also resolved significant anxieties for three academics involved in drafting the initial textbook material. The top court clarified the scope of its previous observations regarding how the curriculum was finalized.

Senior Advocates Arvind Datar, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, and J. Sai Deepak, representing the academics, moved an application seeking explicit clarification. They expressed concern that earlier remarks recorded by the court—noting that established protocols had been bypassed—could be misconstrued as a formal judicial finding against their clients and damage their professional standing.

Clarifying its position, the bench stated that its previous order simply recorded a submission made by the Solicitor General that the draft had not been vetted by the designated committee as per protocol, rather than serving as an independent finding of fault by the court itself. The court had already recalled an earlier interim direction that temporarily restricted the three academics from participating in projects across Central and State universities.

With the controversial chapters pulled from circulation and the revised curriculum active in classrooms nationwide, the apex court formally disposed of the matter.