The Supreme Court docket on Thursday (February 26, 2026) stated there was a “deep-rooted conspiracy” behind the “very, very calculated transfer” to painting the judiciary as a venal establishment in a Class 8 Social Science textbook.
The textbook was revealed by the Nationwide Council of Training Analysis and Coaching (NCERT), an autonomous organisation underneath the Ministry of Training, in February.
A 3-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, in a suo motu case listening to, stated the “reckless, irresponsible, motivated, contemptuous conduct and method” of the textual depiction was meant to instil a bias towards the judiciary within the “impressionable minds” of younger college youngsters, and thru them, to the society at giant and even future generations.
Supreme Court docket listening to on NCERT Class 8 textbook: Observe updates on February 26, 2026
‘Heads should roll’
The Bench stated that “heads should roll”. Solicitor Basic Tushar Mehta, showing for a contrite Union authorities, stated, “All of us are holding our heads in disgrace,” and provided the courtroom an unconditional and unqualified apology.
Mr. Mehta stated the individuals who labored on the textbook would by no means be assigned the duty once more by the Training Ministry. If he had his method, Mr. Mehta added, they’d not be employed by every other Ministry both.
However these statements didn’t appear to assuage the courtroom. Ordering a “blanket and full” ban on the ebook, the Bench ordered the fast seizure and sealing of each copy, each in digital and bodily type.
‘Judiciary is bleeding’
Initiating contempt motion, the courtroom issued a present trigger discover to each the Secretary of the Division of Faculty Training and Literacy, Ministry of Training, and the NCERT Director, Dinesh Prasad Saklani, whom the courtroom stated had “defended” the “offensive content material” even when the Supreme Court docket Secretary Basic, on the instruction of Chief Justice Kant, had sought a proof.
“They fired the gun and the judiciary is bleeding at this time,” Chief Justice Kant stated, addressing the legislation officer.
The courtroom stated that, prima facie, an examination of the ebook’s contents and the response from the director, appeared like a calculated transfer to undermine the institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary. The Bench stated, in its order, that the publication “washed off with one stroke of the pen the illustrious historical past related to the Supreme Court docket, the Excessive Courts” and their substantive contributions in direction of the preservation of democratic values.
“The textual content fails to say the crucial position of the judiciary in upholding constitutional morality and fundamental construction which is the lifeblood of the Indian citizenry. The narrative of the ebook chooses to not delve into any of the transformative measures or initiatives to overtake even the authorized help and streamline the benefit of entry to justice mechanism. This silence is especially egregious given the sheer quantity of excessive rating officers who’ve been censured by this very courtroom previously for corrupt practices, fraudulent actions,” the Bench famous.
‘Deeper probe’
Chief Justice Kant stated the courtroom wouldn’t let the difficulty fade into oblivion after a phrase of apology from the federal government or the NCERT.
“It is a well-orchestrated and deliberate transfer. I want to have a deeper probe. As the pinnacle of the judiciary, it’s my obligation to seek out out who’s accountable. If there are a couple of, heads should roll. Accountability should be there. I’m not going to shut this continuing until I’m glad,” the Chief Justice advised the Union authorities.
Senior members of the Bar, together with senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, and Supreme Court docket Bar Affiliation president Vikas Singh, agreed that the content material was “positively deliberate”.
“The ebook won’t stay confined to college students solely. Its contents are sure to journey from instructor to pupil to guardian and to the whole society, together with the subsequent era… It might have an enduring influence on judicial independence. Such misconduct falls inside felony contempt. If this conduct proves to be deliberate, it should quantity to scandalising the establishment and produce it to disrepute,” the courtroom noticed.
‘Safeguarding younger college students’
The courtroom clarified that its suo motu registration of the case shouldn’t be construed as a transfer to stifle respectable criticism of public establishments, together with the judiciary.
“We’re of the agency opinion that dissent, deliberation, rigorous discourse are very important to democracy and function important devices of institutional accountability. The need to judicial intervention has arisen to safeguard the pedagogical integrity. Younger college students of their youth are solely starting to navigate the nuances of public life and the constitutional structure that sustains it. It’s essentially improper to reveal them to a biased narrative that will engender everlasting misconceptions at this tender age,” the Supreme Court docket underscored.
Printed – February 26, 2026 09:20 pm IST
