In blacklisting NCERT experts, SC does itself a disservice

Last month, the Supreme Court took strong exception to a section in a Class VIII Social Science textbook that referred to corruption in the judiciary. The section, indeed, seemed to reflect bad faith, especially because many of the deletions and additions in NCERT text books on the watch of the BJP-led government have been politically motivated. The judiciary’s seminal role also means that assessments of its institutional record must be undertaken with utmost care and diligence, particularly those meant for impressionable minds. The Court’s reprimand prompted an almost immediate course correction — the government complied with the SC’s directive to withdraw the textbook and pulled up the NCERT. However, after raising the red flag, the SC has further pressed the issue. On Wednesday, it directed the Centre, States, UTs, universities and public institutions to “dissociate” from the NCERT’s team — historian Michel Danino, legal expert Alok Prasanna Kumar and educationist Suparna Diwakar. This blacklisting and imposition of curbs by the Court is a let-down. A prickly and thin-skinned response goes against the Court’s formidable reputation of expansiveness and open-mindedness — built up by bench after bench, and finding expression in jurisprudence that has expanded the ambit of the freedom of expression especially.

In the last decade, NCERT textbooks have invited controversy. The excising of references to the Gujarat riots, pruning of chapters on medieval Indian history, diluting of references to protest movements and removal of the mention of the demolition of Babri Masjid have pointed to a flattening of social complexities and a forced alignment of texts with the ideology of the ruling party. At the same time, amid shifting political currents, the SC has consistently underlined that its integrity lies in being steadfast to constitutional values and due processes. The commitment to its mandate has also made the institution look within. This spirit of introspection lay behind the then-CJI B R Gavai’s remark in July last year. “Sadly, there have been instances of corruption… even within the judiciary,” he said. The now-withdrawn textbook referred to Justice Gavai’s speech.

The Court’s umbrage at what it saw as an attempt to selectively denigrate its institutional dignity wasn’t misplaced. But now, if the Court’s censure gives way to censoring, it will be a disservice to its own record of responding to criticism with magnanimity.

Overall Analysis

This editorial critiques the decision of the Supreme Court of India to blacklist members of the team involved in preparing a National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbook. The author argues that while the Court’s concern about inaccurate or unfair criticism of the judiciary may be understandable, its reaction—ordering institutions to dissociate from the textbook authors—risks appearing intolerant of criticism and undermining its own legacy of protecting free expression.

The editorial begins by describing the controversy surrounding a Class VIII Social Science textbook that mentioned corruption in the judiciary. The Court objected strongly to this reference, suggesting it displayed bias or bad faith. Given that textbooks influence young and impressionable students, the editorial acknowledges that the judiciary’s institutional reputation must be handled carefully. The government quickly responded to the Court’s criticism by withdrawing the textbook and reprimanding NCERT, indicating a swift corrective action.

However, the author argues that the Court went too far when it subsequently directed governments and institutions to distance themselves from the textbook contributors, including historian Michel Danino, legal expert Alok Prasanna Kumar, and educationist Suparna Diwakar. According to the editorial, such “blacklisting” reflects an overly sensitive response that contradicts the Court’s reputation for openness and intellectual tolerance. Historically, the Court has expanded protections for freedom of expression through its judgments, so actions that appear punitive toward academic contributors weaken that legacy.

The editorial then situates the issue within the broader context of debates over NCERT textbook revisions in recent years. Changes such as the removal of references to the 2002 Gujarat riots, reductions in content on medieval Indian history, and the omission of the Demolition of the Babri Masjid have sparked criticism that textbooks are being politically reshaped. The author suggests that in such a contentious environment, academic debate and critique are inevitable and should be handled with restraint.

The article also reminds readers that the judiciary itself has acknowledged internal challenges. It references remarks by B. R. Gavai, who publicly admitted that corruption had existed within the judiciary. The withdrawn textbook cited this very statement, indicating that the reference was not entirely unfounded. By highlighting this fact, the editorial argues that the Court should respond to criticism with reflection rather than punishment.

In its final argument, the editorial states that the Court’s initial objection to the textbook may have been justified if it believed the judiciary was being unfairly portrayed. However, transforming criticism into censorship contradicts the Court’s long-standing role as a defender of democratic freedoms. The judiciary’s authority, the author suggests, is strengthened not by suppressing criticism but by responding to it with confidence and magnanimity.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Reprimand – a formal expression of disapproval.
2. Magnanimity – generosity and fairness, especially toward criticism or opponents.
3. Jurisprudence – the philosophy or study of law and legal principles.
4. Excising – removing or cutting something out.
5. Umbrage – offence or annoyance taken at something perceived as insulting.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that although the Supreme Court was justified in questioning the textbook’s portrayal of the judiciary, its decision to blacklist academic contributors risks damaging its reputation as a defender of free speech and open debate. Institutions gain credibility by responding to criticism with tolerance rather than suppression.

Tone: Critical, reflective, and cautionary, with emphasis on protecting institutional credibility and democratic values.