Supreme Court Removes Adverse Remarks Against Three NCERT Book Experts

The Supreme Court on Friday modified its earlier order in a case linked to an NCERT Class 8 textbook controversy and dropped all adverse remarks against three academic experts, bringing relief to the scholars who had faced institutional disassociation directions following allegations related to content referencing corruption in the judiciary. The matter stemmed from a March 11, 2026 order in which the Supreme Court had directed the Centre, state governments, Union Territories, and educational institutions to distance themselves from the three experts associated with the textbook’s preparation.

The direction had triggered significant debate in academic and legal circles, particularly over concerns regarding academic freedom and institutional accountability in educational content development. On Friday, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant revisited the earlier ruling and accepted the explanations submitted by the three academics — Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar.

The experts maintained that they had no intention of portraying the judiciary in a negative manner and emphasised that the textbook content was developed through a collective editorial and academic process involving multiple contributors rather than being attributable to any single individual or agenda. After examining the submissions, the court held that the earlier adverse observations should not continue to stand. It formally modified paragraph 8 of its March 11 order and withdrew the direction that required the Centre, states, Union Territories, and universities or institutions to disassociate themselves from the three academics.

Also Read: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Against CBSE’s New Language Mandate

The court also ensured that all previous critical remarks against them were deleted from the record. Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that its modified order should not be interpreted as imposing any obligation or restriction on government authorities. It explicitly stated that the Union government, state governments, Union Territories, and other institutions would remain free to take independent decisions in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier direction of the court. This clarification effectively restored administrative discretion to the relevant authorities while removing judicially imposed reputational consequences on the academics involved.

The ruling is being seen as a significant procedural correction in a case that had raised questions about the balance between judicial oversight and academic independence. Legal observers note that the modification underscores the court’s willingness to revisit its own directions when persuaded by clarifications and contextual explanations from affected parties. The case had originated from concerns over certain textbook content that allegedly made references interpreted as critical of judicial integrity.

However, the experts involved consistently argued that the material was part of a broader academic discussion and not intended as a direct institutional critique. The court’s acceptance of this position ultimately led to the withdrawal of its earlier adverse findings. With Friday’s decision, the three academics have been cleared of judicially recorded adverse remarks, though the broader administrative discretion of governments and institutions on future engagement with them remains intact.

Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Plea Against Caste Census, Refers Matter to Centre