The Supreme Court of India directed the Centre, states, and publicly funded institutions to disassociate Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar from curriculum work and publicly funded projects.
The court raised serious concerns about a Class 8 NCERT social science chapter titled “Corruption in the Judiciary”, saying it could present a misleading image of the judiciary to young students.
After the government’s assurance through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the court directed the Centre to set up an expert committee to review the chapter.
On Wednesday, March 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India directed the Union government, all state governments, and publicly funded institutions to immediately distance themselves from Professor Michel Danino and two other contributors involved in preparing a controversial chapter in the Class 8 Social Science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant ordered that Danino, along with contributors Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar, should no longer be associated with any curriculum development work or textbook preparation for future academic sessions. The court also instructed that none of the three should be engaged in publicly funded projects related to education or curriculum design.
We direct the Union, all states, and all institutions receiving state funds to disassociate them from rendering any service which would mean payment to them from public funds...The Bench said
The directions came during the hearing of a suo motu case concerning a section titled “Corruption in the Judiciary” that appeared in the recently released Class 8 social science textbook. The court expressed serious concern about the inclusion of the chapter, stating that the material could present a distorted picture of the judiciary to young students.
The bench observed that the individuals involved either lacked adequate understanding of the judicial system or had knowingly misrepresented facts. “At the outset we have no reason to doubt that Professor Michel Danino along with Ms Diwakar and Mr Alok Prasanna Kumar either does not have reasonable knowledge about the Indian judiciary or they deliberately knowingly misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian judiciary before students of Class 8…,” the court said.
The court further added that the persons responsible had no reason to be “associated in any manner with preparation of curriculum or finalisation of textbooks for the next generation.”
The bench also expressed shock when NCERT informed the court that the chapter had already been rewritten and was planned to be included in textbooks for the 2026–27 academic session. The judges said they were “disturbed” by this development, noting that the agency appeared to have proceeded with revisions despite the court’s earlier objections.
This information was revealed in an affidavit filed by NCERT Director Dinesh Prasad Saklani, who had earlier been issued a notice asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The court pointed out that the affidavit did not clearly identify the experts who had rewritten the chapter or explain how the revised version was approved.
Following the court’s concerns, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the bench that the chapter would not be published again until it had been reviewed by an independent committee of experts.
The bench directed the central government to constitute such a panel, suggesting it include a former judge, an academic scholar, and a senior legal practitioner. Any revised version of the chapter must receive the committee’s approval before it can be printed or included in the curriculum.
The judges also questioned the role of the National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTMC), which is responsible for approving NCERT textbooks. During the hearing, it emerged that the controversial chapter had only been circulated digitally among some members instead of undergoing the full approval process. The court asked the Union government to review the committee’s composition and procedures.
The Dispute began in late February 2026, when NCERT released the new Class 8 social science textbook containing a section highlighting corruption in the judiciary. Soon after its release, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi raised objections before the court, arguing that the chapter unfairly portrayed the judiciary and could harm the reputation of the institution.
Responding to these concerns earlier, Chief Justice Surya Kant said judges across the country had expressed alarm over the issue and described the development as a possible attempt to undermine the credibility of the judiciary. The court subsequently initiated suo motu proceedings.
[VP]
Suggested Reading: