Introduction
In 2026, a controversy surrounding an NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook brought an unusual constitutional question into the national spotlight:
How should the judiciary respond when an educational textbook critically discusses the judiciary itself?
The controversy concerned a chapter titled "The Role of the Judiciary in our Society" in the Class 8 Social Science textbook Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Part 2.
The chapter contained a section concerning "Corruption in the Judiciary."
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the issue in February 2026. The Court expressed serious concern about the treatment of the judiciary in the textbook and directed that the book should not be circulated.
The matter subsequently developed further. In May 2026, the Supreme Court modified its earlier directions concerning three academics associated with the textbook and removed the adverse directions against them, while leaving the relevant government and educational institutions free to take independent decisions.
The controversy therefore raises questions far beyond the textbook itself.
It involves:
- Judicial dignity
- Freedom of academic expression
- Freedom of speech
- Contempt jurisdiction
- Institutional criticism
- Judicial activism
- Separation of powers
- The limits of suo motu jurisdiction
1. What Was the NCERT Controversy About?
The controversy arose around a newly released Class 8 Social Science textbook published by NCERT.
A chapter titled "The Role of the Judiciary in our Society" included a section discussing "Corruption in the Judiciary."
The material referred to complaints concerning the judiciary and discussed concerns relating to transparency, accountability, and institutional corruption. The Supreme Court took serious exception to the manner in which the issue had been presented.
The controversy attracted national attention because the subject matter involved an unusual combination:
A constitutional institution examining educational material that criticised that same institution.
2. Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the matter following media reporting concerning the textbook.
The Court's February 2026 order expressed strong concern over the content and its potential effect on the institutional standing of the judiciary.
The Court observed that the inclusion of the material warranted rigorous review of its pedagogical suitability and potential impact on the judiciary.
The Court also directed action concerning the circulation of the textbook. Reports at the time described the order as effectively stopping further physical and digital circulation of the book.
3. Why Did the Matter Become Constitutionally Important?
At first glance, the controversy may appear to be an educational dispute.
But it raises much deeper constitutional questions.
Can the judiciary be criticised?
Yes, criticism of public institutions is an important component of democratic discourse.
Can criticism of judges amount to contempt?
Yes, the law recognises contempt jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances.
Where is the boundary?
The difficult question is identifying the point at which criticism becomes unlawful contempt rather than legitimate public discussion.
Does institutional dignity justify restricting educational content?
This raises questions about proportionality, academic freedom, freedom of expression, and the special position of educational institutions.
4. Judiciary and Freedom of Expression
Freedom of speech and expression is protected under Article 19(1)(a).
The freedom is not absolute.
Article 19(2) permits specified reasonable restrictions, including restrictions relating to contempt of court.
This creates an important constitutional balance.
On one side:
The judiciary must be protected from malicious attacks that undermine the administration of justice.
On the other:
The judiciary, like every constitutional institution, exists within a democratic system where legitimate criticism must remain possible.
The NCERT controversy therefore sits directly at the intersection of judicial dignity and freedom of expression.
5. What Is Contempt of Court?
Contempt jurisdiction exists to protect the administration of justice and the authority of courts.
It broadly includes two categories:
Civil Contempt
Civil contempt generally concerns wilful disobedience of judgments, orders, directions, or other processes of a court.
Criminal Contempt
Criminal contempt broadly includes conduct or publication that:
- Scandalises or tends to scandalise the court
- Prejudices or interferes with judicial proceedings
- Interferes with the administration of justice
However, contempt powers are constitutionally sensitive because they can come into tension with freedom of expression.
6. The Academic Freedom Question
One of the most important dimensions of the NCERT controversy concerns academic freedom.
Educational institutions are expected to encourage students to understand institutions critically.
Teaching about democracy does not necessarily mean presenting constitutional institutions as perfect.
Students may need to understand:
- How courts function
- How judges are appointed
- What judicial review means
- How judicial independence is protected
- What judicial accountability means
- What criticisms have been made against institutions
- How constitutional institutions can improve
This creates a legitimate educational question:
Can criticism of an institution be educationally appropriate even when that institution considers the criticism unfair?
7. The Age of Impressionable Students
The Supreme Court's concern was also connected with the fact that the material appeared in a Class 8 textbook.
The February 2026 order expressed concern regarding the potential impact of the material on young students and the institutional standing of the judiciary.
This introduces another balancing exercise:
Academic openness
versus
Age-appropriate educational presentation
A textbook for young students may require greater contextualisation than an academic journal or university-level constitutional law book.
The issue therefore is not simply whether criticism is permissible.
It is also:
How should controversial institutional criticism be taught to young students?
8. The Controversy Over Cartoons
The controversy later expanded beyond the section concerning judicial corruption.
During subsequent proceedings in May 2026, the Supreme Court also considered the use of cartoons in NCERT textbooks.
The Court directed a committee headed by a former judge to review such content.
This development raises a broader question about how textbooks should use:
- Cartoons
- Satire
- Illustrations
- Political criticism
- Historical controversy
Visual material can be a powerful educational tool, but its meaning may also depend heavily on context.
9. The Three Academics
Three academics associated with the preparation of the controversial material became central to the proceedings.
In March 2026, the Supreme Court had directed that the Centre, States, Union Territories, public universities, and certain publicly funded institutions disassociate from them.
This generated another constitutional concern.
The issue was no longer simply:
"Should this textbook chapter be changed?"
It became:
"To what extent should a court control the professional or academic participation of individuals associated with controversial educational material?"
10. Supreme Court Modifies Its Earlier Direction
The matter took a significant turn in May 2026.
The Supreme Court modified its earlier order concerning the three academics.
The Court left it open to the Centre, States, Union Territories, public universities, and publicly funded institutions to make independent decisions regarding their association with the academics, without being bound by the observations made in the earlier order.
This development is important because it demonstrates that judicial proceedings themselves can evolve when new submissions, explanations, and arguments are placed before the Court.
11. What Does the NCERT Row Teach About Judicial Activism?
The controversy provides an interesting case study for the broader debate over judicial activism.
Judicial activism generally involves courts taking an active role in protecting constitutional values.
But the question becomes more complicated when the court itself is the institution whose reputation is allegedly affected.
This creates a potential institutional tension:
Can a court simultaneously protect its institutional dignity and determine the limits of criticism directed at itself?
That does not automatically mean that judicial intervention is improper.
Courts have legitimate constitutional powers relating to contempt and administration of justice.
However, the exercise of those powers must remain consistent with constitutional principles.
12. Judicial Power and Institutional Self-Restraint
The controversy highlights the importance of judicial self-restraint.
Courts possess substantial constitutional authority.
But institutional legitimacy also depends upon public confidence that judicial power is being exercised carefully and impartially.
This is particularly important when a case concerns criticism of the judiciary itself.
The principle can be expressed simply:
The stronger the institutional power, the greater the importance of institutional restraint.
13. Freedom of Criticism vs Protection of Courts
A democratic constitutional system needs both.
Courts Need Protection
Judges must be able to decide cases without intimidation, threats, or deliberate interference with the administration of justice.
Citizens Need Freedom to Criticise
Citizens, academics, journalists, lawyers, and researchers must be able to discuss how institutions function.
Legitimate criticism can contribute to institutional improvement.
The challenge is to distinguish:
Good-faith institutional criticism
from
Speech that genuinely interferes with the administration of justice.
14. Why the NCERT Row Matters for Students
The controversy is particularly relevant for students of constitutional law and public administration because it connects several topics.
Fundamental Rights
Article 19 protects freedom of speech and expression.
Judicial Review
Courts can review State action for constitutional validity.
Contempt of Court
Courts possess powers to protect the administration of justice.
Separation of Powers
Different constitutional institutions have different roles.
Judicial Activism
The case raises questions about the appropriate extent of judicial intervention.
Academic Freedom
Educational institutions require space for discussion, criticism, and inquiry.
15. Key Constitutional Questions
The NCERT controversy raises several questions that may continue to shape future legal debates.
Question 1
What is the constitutional boundary between criticism and contempt?
Question 2
How much protection should academic criticism receive?
Question 3
Should courts exercise suo motu jurisdiction over controversial educational content?
Question 4
How should courts balance institutional dignity against freedom of expression?
Question 5
Should judicial intervention extend to professional consequences for academics?
Question 6
How should constitutional institutions respond when they themselves become subjects of criticism?
These questions have significance beyond NCERT.
16. The Larger Constitutional Principle
The controversy ultimately illustrates an important feature of constitutional democracy.
No institution exists entirely outside constitutional scrutiny.
The judiciary protects the Constitution.
At the same time, the judiciary itself operates within the Constitution.
This means that judicial independence and judicial accountability must coexist.
Judicial independence protects courts from political interference.
Judicial accountability ensures that institutional power is exercised responsibly.
Academic freedom and freedom of expression allow society to discuss how constitutional institutions function.
17. Current Status
As of May 2026, the Supreme Court had modified its earlier directions concerning the three academics and left the relevant government and educational institutions free to take independent decisions.
The Court had also directed a committee to review certain textbook content, including the use of cartoons, demonstrating that the controversy had developed into a broader examination of how judicial and political institutions should be presented in school textbooks.
Therefore, the issue should not be understood simply as a dispute over one textbook.
It is a contemporary constitutional debate about the relationship between:
Judiciary + Freedom of Expression + Academic Freedom + Institutional Dignity + Judicial Power
Conclusion
The NCERT textbook controversy is significant because it places two important democratic values alongside each other.
On one side stands the need to protect the dignity and authority of the judiciary and the administration of justice.
On the other stands the need to preserve freedom of expression, academic inquiry, and legitimate institutional criticism.
The Supreme Court's subsequent modification of its earlier directions concerning the three academics demonstrates the evolving nature of the controversy.
The deeper constitutional lesson is therefore not simply whether the textbook was right or wrong.
The more important question is:
In a constitutional democracy, who should decide the limits of criticism of constitutional institutions, and what limits should apply to that power?
That question makes the NCERT row an important contemporary case study in judicial activism, judicial restraint, freedom of expression, contempt of court, and separation of powers.