NCERT Book Row: Expert Panel Formed to Revise Legal Studies Curriculum

In a significant development that sits at the intersection of education, law, and institutional accountability, the Supreme Court of India has effectively taken control of how the judiciary will be represented in school textbooks.

Following a major controversy surrounding a Class 8 NCERT Social Science textbook, the Union Government has now constituted an expert committee to finalise the Legal Studies curriculum—not just for Class 8, but for higher grades as well.

The Committee That Will Redefine Legal Education

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that the committee will include some of the most prominent legal minds in the country:

• Justice Indu Malhotra
• K.K. Venugopal
• Justice Aniruddha Bose (in association through the National Judicial Academy)

 Hearing the submission, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed satisfaction, remarking that there could be no better experts to guide the framing of such a sensitive curriculum.

 What Triggered the Controversy?

 The issue traces back to a chapter titled “The Role of the Judiciary in our Society”, particularly a sub-section on “Corruption in the Judiciary.”

Taking suo motu cognisance of a newspaper report, the Supreme Court observed that the content was prima facie designed to “malign the Indian judiciary.” The Court went as far as initiating contempt proceedings against those involved in drafting the lesson.

Earlier, on February 26, the Court imposed a “blanket and complete” ban on the textbook, even after the Centre withdrew over 82,000 copies from circulation.

From Ban to Oversight

 The Court’s intervention did not stop at halting publication. It laid down a strict condition that no revised chapter would be published without approval from a committee of domain experts.The Court also took strong exception to NCERT’s claim that the chapter had already been “duly rewritten,” indicating a deeper concern about process, accountability, and institutional respect.

Additionally, the Court directed that the expert panel should work in consultation with the National Judicial Academy to review legal studies content across classes.

  Criticism vs Contempt: A Delicate Balance

 Interestingly, while taking a strong stand against the textbook, the Supreme Court clarified an important principle stating that the judiciary is not averse to objective and legitimate criticism. The Court acknowledged that if there are institutional deficiencies, highlighting them through expert analysis could be beneficial—not just for students, but also for improving the system itself.

 This raises a critical constitutional question: Where does legitimate academic critique end, and institutional defamation begin?

 The Real Issue: Shaping “Impressionable Minds”

 At the heart of the controversy lies the Court’s concern about the impact on young students. The judiciary viewed the chapter as a potential attempt to create bias in “impressionable minds”, suggesting that how institutions are introduced at an early age can shape long-term public trust. This brings us to a broader debate: Should school education include discussions on institutional flaws? Or should it focus on building trust before introducing criticism? And most importantly, who decides this balance?

📌 Follow us on YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter for more update.