Academician Danino Accuses NCERT of Betrayal After Supreme Court Reversal on Textbook Ban

Academician Michel Danino has strongly criticized the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) following the Supreme Court of India’s decision to recall portions of its earlier order directing governments and public institutions to distance themselves from him. Speaking publicly for the first time since the court’s revised ruling, Danino said NCERT “threw us under the bus” during the controversy surrounding references to judicial corruption and delays included in a revised Class 8 social science textbook. The issue had sparked a wider debate over academic freedom, textbook content, and institutional accountability.

The controversy began after objections were raised over textbook passages discussing corruption and delays in the judiciary. In March, the Supreme Court had issued directions against Danino, educationist Suparna Divakar, and legal researcher Alok Prasanna Kumar in connection with the content. However, the court later recalled portions of that order, easing the restrictions imposed on the academics. Danino argued that NCERT failed to adequately defend the broader educational and pedagogical reasoning behind the textbook material during the legal proceedings.

According to Danino, NCERT neither consulted him before submitting its affidavit to the court nor accepted responsibility for the textbook content. He also claimed he was removed from all committees without prior communication or explanation. Describing his eventual resignation as a “post-dismissal resignation,” Danino suggested that the institution distanced itself from the authors instead of standing by the academic process that shaped the revised curriculum. His remarks have intensified discussions about how educational institutions respond under political and legal pressure.

Also Read: US Proposes Government-Wide NDAs For Federal Workers Under Trump Administration

The episode has raised broader concerns among educators and scholars regarding the future of academic independence in India’s education system. Critics argue that fear of legal action or public controversy could discourage academics from engaging with complex social and institutional issues in textbooks and research. Supporters of the textbook revisions maintain that students should be encouraged to critically examine democratic institutions, including challenges within the judiciary, while opponents believe such content must be handled cautiously in school education.

The Supreme Court’s revised position has provided partial relief to the academics involved, but the debate surrounding the case continues to resonate across academic and legal circles. Education experts say the controversy highlights the growing tension between curriculum development, institutional autonomy, and public accountability in India. Danino’s comments are likely to further fuel discussions about the role of state institutions in protecting scholars and preserving space for critical inquiry within the country’s educational framework.

Also Read: US Senator Calls Pakistan "More Than Problematic" Over Abraham Accords Rejection