Supreme Court Revokes Directions Against Three Academics
A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, has lifted the ban imposed on three academics—Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar—restraining them from participating in publicly funded academic projects. The directions were passed while hearing applications filed by the academics challenging the Court's earlier order in a suo motu proceeding concerning a Class 8 NCERT social science textbook.
Background of the Controversy
Three months prior, the Supreme Court, acting on its own motion, had taken exception to a one-page section titled 'Corruption in the Judiciary' in the textbook 'Exploring Society: India and Beyond', prepared by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). The section formed part of Chapter Four, 'The Role of the Judiciary in our Society'. In an unprecedented move, the Court not only directed the removal of the content but also barred the three authors from receiving public funds. It further directed the Union government, state governments, universities, and all institutions to disassociate from the academicians and refrain from engaging them in any publicly funded academic work.
Bench Observations on Textbook Content
During the recent hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the Union government had already decided not to involve the academics in future projects. The bench, while allowing the applications and setting aside the restrictive directions against the individuals, maintained its view that the textbook chapter was 'wholly undesirable'. The Court accepted the academics' explanation that the content was prepared collectively and without malicious intent.
In its earlier judgment, the Court had characterised the textbook as reckless, irresponsible, contemptuous, and motivated by a discernible agenda to undermine institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary. It condemned the chapter for conspicuously omitting the judiciary's substantive contributions to preserving India's democratic fabric, upholding constitutional morality, and protecting the basic structure doctrine. The judgment also noted the absence of references to transformative initiatives pioneered by the Court towards overhauling legal aid mechanisms and streamlining access to justice.
Pedagogical Integrity Versus Academic Freedom
The Court had justified its intervention not as an attempt to suppress criticism but as an effort to safeguard the pedagogical integrity of the national curriculum. It emphasised that young students in their formative years are only beginning to navigate the nuances of public life and the constitutional architecture that sustains it. The bench held that it is fundamentally improper to expose them to a biased narrative that may engender permanent misconceptions at an age when they lack the discernment to appreciate the manifold and onerous responsibilities the judiciary discharges daily.
Why Did the Supreme Court Initially Ban the Academics?
The Supreme Court banned the three academics from public-funded projects because it found the textbook section on judicial corruption to be reckless, irresponsible, and motivated by an agenda to undermine institutional authority, directing institutions to disassociate from the authors.
Implications for Judicial Accountability
Legal scholars have argued that the episode has broader implications for academic freedom and the teaching of judicial corruption. Critics contend that the judgment invisibilizes corruption within an unelected public institution, effectively hiding what has been termed 'Crimes of the Powerful'. The contention is that the section contained no generalisation that the entire judiciary is corrupt, nor sensational tales of wrongdoing, raising questions about the balance between institutional standing and democratic legitimacy. The lifting of the ban on the academics resolves the immediate restraint on their professional engagement, though the Court's adverse remarks on the textbook content remain on record.