In a significant development in the ongoing NCERT textbook controversy, three academicians barred over their involvement in a Class 8 chapter on “corruption in the judiciary” have approached the Supreme Court seeking a review of the order, asserting that the content was the outcome of a collective academic exercise.

The scholars — Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar — told the Court that the chapter was not authored by any single individual but emerged from a collaborative drafting process involving multiple contributors.

The Supreme Court had, on March 11, directed the Centre and NCERT to bar the three from participating in curriculum development or holding positions in state bodies, citing concerns over the content of the disputed chapter.

Challenging the move, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Kumar, argued that the Court’s observations had prejudiced the authors. He stressed that the submissions were intended to place the academic context before the bench, not to contest institutional authority.

He further noted that under the National Education Policy’s pedagogical framework, textbooks are designed to critically examine challenges faced by key institutions, including the legislature, executive, and the Election Commission.

Appearing for Danino, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar informed the Court that an explanatory affidavit had been filed addressing the concerns raised earlier. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, representing Diwakar, reiterated that the chapter was a product of collective deliberation, with no single individual exercising final editorial control.

After hearing the submissions, the bench directed that the matter be listed once procedural defects in the applications are rectified.

Affidavits underline collaborative drafting

In their affidavits, the three academicians detailed the consultative nature of the chapter’s preparation, stating it involved inputs from a wide academic network. They also contested certain submissions made earlier by NCERT Director Dr Dinesh Prasad Saklani.

According to the filings, draft versions of the chapter were circulated within a digital group comprising over 40 members, with revisions discussed across multiple meetings in late 2025. Saklani, they noted, was part of these communications in his official capacity.

Team roles clarified amid scrutiny                 

The affidavits further sought to dispel the perception that responsibility lay with just three individuals, stating that the Class 8 Social Science Textbook Development Team included around 15 active contributors.

They also clarified Diwakar’s role as Chief Consultant, describing it as primarily focused on research support, coordination, and editorial assistance, without final decision-making authority over the chapter’s content.

Why the Supreme Court barred the academics

The controversy stems from suo motu proceedings before a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.

In its earlier order, the Court barred the three from future academic engagements with public institutions, observing that the authors either lacked adequate understanding of the judiciary or had presented a distorted view, potentially influencing young students.

The ruling followed widespread criticism of the NCERT chapter dealing with corruption in the judiciary.

NCERT response and next steps

The Supreme Court noted that NCERT had, on April 2, reconstituted a high-powered 20-member expert committee led by MC Pant to develop the national syllabus and teacher learning materials.

The council has since withdrawn the contentious chapter and issued a public apology. The Court has directed that any revised version must undergo scrutiny by the expert panel before being reintroduced.

The bench will take up the affidavits filed by the academicians once procedural requirements are fulfilled, even as the expert committee’s review remains pending.

The episode has triggered a broader debate on academic freedom, judicial oversight, and the boundaries of critique in educational content — with the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling expected to set a crucial precedent for how sensitive constitutional issues are presented in school textbooks.