The Supreme Court on Friday withdrew its earlier direction barring three academicians linked to the controversial NCERT Class 8 chapter on corruption in the judiciary from participating in academic projects of public institutions and universities. The court also removed its earlier remarks accusing them of intentionally portraying the Indian judiciary negatively before students.
According to a report by Livelaw, the bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, said the earlier observations were being recalled after hearing explanations from the academicians involved.
The matter relates to a now-removed NCERT Class 8 sub-chapter titled “Corruption in Indian Judiciary”, which had triggered strong criticism earlier this year. The Supreme Court noted in March that the scholars had "deliberately and knowingly" falsified information in order to paint the court in a bad light. The court had also directed government institutions to distance themselves from the three individuals.
Court says governments can decide independently
While modifying its earlier order, the bench clarified that the Union and state governments are free to independently decide whether to involve the academicians in future academic projects.
According to Livelaw reported, academic Alok Prasanna Kumar, Michel Danino, and Suparna Diwakar requested the court to revoke the previous observation.
The court noted that it was satisfied with the explanation offered by them that the chapter was prepared collectively and without any malicious intent.
“Owing to the explanation given by the applicants, we deem it appropriate to modify para 8 of the order,” the bench observed, while recalling the earlier direction that had asked institutions to disassociate the academics from academic activities.
Debate over balance in academic content
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Danino, said the chapter was not written by one individual but was part of a collective exercise.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Alok Prasanna Kumar, argued that students should not be shielded from real issues affecting institutions, including the judiciary. He said the chapter aimed to give students a realistic understanding of governance and public institutions.
However, Justice Bagchi remarked that the concern was not about discussing problems in the judiciary, but about the lack of balance in the chapter.
“Corruption was highlighted as a unique feature. Not a single word about access to legal services. Nothing to say about the role of judges in legal services,” Justice Bagchi observed during the hearing as reported by Livelaw.
Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Suparna Diwakar, argued that the earlier observations could affect the academics’ livelihood and professional reputation.
Government maintains separate stand
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the Union government had independently decided not to involve the three academicians in future projects. He also disputed the claim that the chapter had been approved through a fully collective process.
