NCERT withdraws Class 8 Social Science textbook after Supreme Court objects to content on ‘corruption in judiciary’, halts distribution, and plans a rewrite before the 2026-27 session. NCERT is also working to retrieve sold copies.
The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has pulled its newly released Class 8 Social Science textbook Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Vol II from sale and halted its distribution after the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognisance of a chapter that referenced “corruption in the judiciary”.
The withdrawal follows strong objections by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and widespread institutional concern over the chapter’s portrayal of the judiciary’s integrity. NCERT has apologised for the “inappropriate” material, announced plans to rewrite the chapter in consultation with experts, and is trying to retrieve the 38 copies that were sold before the recall.
What Happened and Why It Matters
The book, released on 24 February 2026, included Chapter 4 titled The Role of Judiciary in our Society, which discussed structural challenges facing India’s judicial system including a section that mentioned corruption and extensive case backlogs. It cited figures such as tens of millions of pending cases across courts to illustrate how systemic pressures affect judicial functioning.
Soon after the textbook hit shelves, senior advocates, including A M Singhvi and Kapil Sibal, raised concerns that the content could damage public confidence in the judiciary and was unsuitable for Class 8 students. The issue was brought before the Supreme Court, where CJI Surya Kant said he “will not allow anyone to defame the institution” and objected strongly to the specific references to corruption.
The court registered the matter suo motu, with a bench including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi overseeing the proceedings.
In response to the court’s remarks, NCERT swiftly removed the book from sale and its website, and placed distribution on strict hold. A senior official described the inclusion of the material as an “error of judgement” and “purely unintentional”, emphasising that NCERT respects the judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution.
Retrieval, Revision and Institutional Statements
NCERT sources told ANI that of the 2.25 lakh copies printed, only 38 copies were sold before the recall, and all unsold stock has already been returned to its warehouse. Efforts are now underway to track and retrieve the sold copies from bookstores and buyers to prevent further circulation of the contentious edition.
In its official statement, NCERT said it will rewrite the controversial chapter in consultation with appropriate academic and legal authorities and ensure the revised version is available to students before the 2026-27 academic session begins. The council reiterated its objective of strengthening constitutional literacy, institutional respect and an informed understanding of democratic participation, underscoring that there was “no intent” to question the authority of any constitutional body.
The Ministry of Education’s Department of School Education and Literacy also reportedly raised similar concerns, leading to the immediate halt of the textbook’s distribution. Once revised and vetted, the updated version will be formally approved before re-release.
Judicial Sensitivity and Public Reaction
The Supreme Court’s swift intervention highlights the sensitivity with which references to the judiciary are treated in education policy and public discourse. CJI Surya Kant was reported to have received numerous messages, including from High Court judges, expressing concern about the chapter’s content. The bench indicated that portrayals of corruption, especially without careful context, could undermine public trust in the justice system.
The response has not been limited to elite institutions. Online discussions reflect a mix of reactions some supportive of the judiciary’s stance, others critical of what they view as an attempt to suppress honest discussion about real challenges within democratic institutions. While social media posts do not represent academic consensus, they do show how public opinion is divided on whether educational content should openly address systemic issues like court backlogs and judicial accountability.
Balancing Curriculum, Critique and Respect
Textbooks serve a dual role: to educate students about the structure and functioning of institutions and to encourage critical thinking about real-world challenges. The NCERT’s inclusion of content on judicial challenges was reportedly part of a broader revision under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework (NCF), aimed at providing more nuanced, real-world perspectives to learners. The content sought to explain how judicial mechanisms work, how accountability is maintained, and what systemic pressures exist within the justice delivery system.
However, the controversy underscores the fine line between critical analysis and perceived defamation in educational materials. While outlining challenges like case pendency and administrative constraints is factual, attributing systemic corruption without careful framing and proportional references can ignite institutional pushback especially when it involves constitutional bodies like the judiciary.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Education should equip young minds with both knowledge and critical understanding of how democratic institutions function and evolve. Engaging with facts such as case backlogs or accountability mechanisms helps students grasp that democracies continually strive to uphold justice, transparency and public confidence.
At the same time, educational content must be accurate, balanced and respectful, recognising that institutions like the judiciary are foundational to constitutional democracy.
The present episode suggests that curriculum development, judicial sensitivity, and public discourse must coexist in a spirit of openness and dialogue.
Suppressing discussion may avoid immediate controversy, but fostering informed and nuanced understanding of real challenges strengthens democratic citizenship in the long run.
