New Delhi, Feb 26 (NationPress) The Supreme Court took a strong stance against the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) on Thursday regarding mentions of "corruption in the judiciary" found in a Class 8 Social Science textbook. The court described the controversy as a potentially "calculated move" that has left the judiciary "bleeding".

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant was reviewing a suo motu case titled "In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade–8 (Part-2) published by NCERT and related matters". The court issued several sweeping interim orders, including an immediate nationwide seizure of the textbook, removal of digital copies, and a total halt on its publication and distribution.

Expressing its preliminary view that the textbook's content represented "a calculated move to undermine institutional authority and disrespect the dignity of the judiciary," the Bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, cautioned that permitting such narratives to persist unchecked would diminish public trust.

The Supreme Court noted that while the chapter aimed to discuss the judiciary's role, it neglected to recognize the institution's significant contributions, such as protecting constitutional morality, upholding the basic structure doctrine, and enhancing access to justice through legal aid reforms.

Issuing show-cause notices, the Bench, led by CJI Kant, instructed the Secretary of the Department of School Education, Ministry of Education, and NCERT Director Dr. Dinesh Prasad Saklani to clarify why actions under the Contempt of Courts Act or other relevant laws should not be taken against them or those responsible for writing the controversial chapter.

The apex court mandated NCERT, in collaboration with Union and State education authorities, to swiftly seize and eliminate all physical and digital copies of the textbook from schools, retail locations, storage facilities, and online platforms.

The court placed personal accountability on the NCERT Director and educational authorities to ensure the sealing and withdrawal of all copies, and directed Principal Secretaries of Education in various states to submit compliance reports within two weeks.

As a precaution, the CJI Kant-led Bench implemented a "complete and absolute ban" on any further publication, reprinting, or digital distribution of the textbook, warning that any attempt to circulate the material would be considered a willful disobedience of the court's order.

It also demanded disclosure of the names and qualifications of the members of the syllabus committee involved in drafting the chapter, along with the original minutes of meetings where the content was approved.

While clarifying that the proceedings were not meant to suppress legitimate criticism or academic discussion, the Supreme Court asserted that educational resources must not present a biased viewpoint that could scandalize constitutional institutions.

The court further remarked that the choice of language in the textbook "may not be a simple inadvertent or genuine error" and warned that, if intentional, the act could constitute criminal contempt for obstructing justice and tarnishing the institution's reputation.

During the hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre's legal framework, offered an unconditional apology on behalf of the authorities and informed the court that the Secretary of the School Education Department was in attendance.

However, the Supreme Court expressed significant dissatisfaction with how the apology was presented.

"There is not a single word of apology in their notice," CJI Kant remarked, adding that the publication seemed part of a deeper, coordinated effort to undermine the judiciary's credibility.

It noted that the repercussions of the publication could not be mitigated simply by withdrawing individuals involved in the process. "That’s of very little consequence. They fired the gunshot -- the judiciary is bleeding today," stated the CJI Kant-led Bench.

Questioning the sincerity of the apology conveyed through an NCERT press release, the Supreme Court remarked that it would later assess whether the apology was genuine or merely a tactic to evade responsibility after irreversible damage had been done.

Stating that it would not conclude the matter until accountability is established, the CJI declared: "As head of the judiciary, it is my responsibility to identify who is accountable. We will not close this until we are satisfied."

SG Mehta reported that 32 copies of the book had entered the market but were being withdrawn immediately, assuring the court that an expert team would reevaluate the entire chapter.

The Centre’s law officer further stated that authorities would issue takedown orders under statutory provisions to ensure the removal of all digital versions.

The case has been scheduled for further hearing in four weeks.