In a sharp rebuke, the Supreme Court of India questioned the lack of clarity in an affidavit filed by National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) regarding the revision of a controversial Class 8 Social Science chapter.
The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, expressed strong dissatisfaction with what it described as a “laconic” statement submitted by NCERT Director Dinesh Prasad Saklani. The affidavit claimed that the chapter—previously banned for its content on “corruption in judiciary”—had been “duly rewritten,” but failed to provide any details on the process or the experts involved.
Court Demands Transparency
During the hearing, the Chief Justice directly questioned who was responsible for rewriting the chapter. The response from NCERT—that “experts among faculty members” handled it—did not satisfy the Bench.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi further pressed the issue, highlighting inconsistencies in the affidavit. He pointed out that the wording suggested the revision had already been completed, yet no information was provided about the methodology, authorship, or academic review process.
The Court criticized the casual approach, emphasizing that such matters require seriousness and transparency, especially when they concern educational material for young students.
Right to Privacy Not Absolute: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Private Chats as Evidence in Matrimonial Dispute
Background of the Controversy
The issue stems from a February 26 order by the Supreme Court imposing a “blanket and complete” ban on the NCERT Social Science textbook. Despite the Union government—represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta—withdrawing over 82,000 copies from circulation, the Court remained concerned.
The Bench observed that the chapter could potentially create bias against the judiciary in the “impressionable minds” of schoolchildren, making it a matter of serious constitutional and educational importance.
Concerns Over Academic Accountability
The Court’s latest remarks underline broader concerns about academic accountability and institutional responsibility. By questioning the credibility of the rewriting process, the judiciary signaled that mere assurances without substantiated details would not suffice.
The presence of Sanjay Kumar, Secretary of the Department of School Education and Literacy, further highlights the government’s involvement and the significance of the issue at the policy level.
What Lies Ahead
The Supreme Court’s scrutiny suggests that NCERT may now be required to provide a detailed explanation of the revision process, including the identities and qualifications of the experts involved, as well as the methodology adopted.
This case could set an important precedent for how educational content is reviewed and revised in India, particularly when it intersects with sensitive institutional issues.
